Prospect Info: Penguins draft strategy: Cause for concern?

[IcedCapp]

Broadly speaking, if you ask me, an NHL bottom six should be able to do two things--be difficult to play against (which can mean a lot of things) and, if not outright win their minutes, then at least come close to breaking even. There isn't one bottom-six player in this organization who does both (Megna gets the closest).

The way I see it, there are six holes in the bottom half of the forward roster, though that doesn't necessarily mean, for example, Vitale wouldn't start winning his minutes if we had two of Mike Rupp from five years ago flanking him.

This isn't to say Goc doesn't help matters, however. A guy who does one of the two things you want from a bottom sixer (in his case, win his minutes) is better than a guy who does zero, such as Sutter.

Like I said, I like the Goc an Stempniak moves, but I bet we all look at our depth at forward differently if Scrabble and Megna. They may not be average bottom-6ers, but at least they play fast and physical and don't treat the puck like a grenade.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I don't perceive that the same way as you do. To me, that quote spoke more to Bennett's overall lack of NHL experience. The Pens will be getting back someone with considerable skill & determination, but he is essentially still at the very beginning of his NHL career. His overall production is a reflection of that and may continue to be so for some time.

Isn't it sort of redundant to say that a guy drafted in 2010 is just at the beginning of his career though?

If we acknowledge the quality of Bennett's actual play rather than box score watching or cherry picking misrepresentative stats, it's pretty clear Bennett was a great pick. I think it's ironic that a lot of people will criticize Shero's drafting on one hand, but are loathe to give up guys like Bennett and Maatta in trades - even for high-end established wingers. It's sort of wanting have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If one were to judge Ovechkin's career by assists, he passes the evaluation with flying colors. For a pure shooter and a wing to have the 11th most assists since he entered the NHL is astounding, frankly.

Thornton is first by the same measure, so I'm not sure what he's meant to have in common with Bennett.

I was talking about this year.

The point is that picking a stat that isn't a player's strong suit even in a best-case scenario is misrepresentative. Bennett isn't and has never been a goal-scorer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't looked fantastic out there. He's a gifted playmaker, smart, plays physical and is responsible in his own end.

Really. It's like judging Harrington on his production or Malkin on his hits.

 

[billybudd]

I was talking about this year.

The point is that picking a stat that isn't a player's strong suit even in a best-case scenario is misrepresentative. Bennett isn't and has never been a goal-scorer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't looked fantastic out there. He's a gifted playmaker, smart, plays physical and is responsible in his own end.

Really. It's like judging Harrington on his production or Malkin on his hits.

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you think the inability of a top 6 winger to finish shouldn't be considered when judging his worth because he doesn't do that?

I can't say that makes any sense to me at all.

 

[UnrealMachine]

I was talking about this year.

The point is that picking a stat that isn't a player's strong suit even in a best-case scenario is misrepresentative. Bennett isn't and has never been a goal-scorer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't looked fantastic out there. He's a gifted playmaker, smart, plays physical and is responsible in his own end.

Really. It's like judging Harrington on his production or Malkin on his hits.

You might consider the original quip to be misrepresentative, but you are swinging for the fences of the opposite field when you describe Bennett's play so far as being "fantastic" and "gifted". He's coming off of a major injury and it's unlikely that he gets anywhere close potential this season. Then you have to factor in DB, which you never do, and he'll have to do so from the 4th line while Bulletproof Glass chases pucks.

 

[StaalForOne]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you think the inability of a top 6 winger to finish shouldn't be considered when judging his worth because he doesn't do that?

I can't say that makes any sense to me at all.

Goals aren't everything, even for a top 6 winger. The most important aspect is that Bennett creates scoring chances, and can open up space for his linemates. Something a large majority of the team is incapable of doing.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you think the inability of a top 6 winger to finish shouldn't be considered when judging his worth because he doesn't do that?

I can't say that makes any sense to me at all.

I'm saying that using a stat that clearly isn't his forte as the only basis for evaluating him is dishonest and misrepresentative. Remember that Hemsky guy, who the board had a collective conniption fit over when we didn't acquire him for Sid's line at the deadline? 7 goals in 55 games. With considerably more minutes at ES and on the PP than Bennett.

Now why would people want that?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You might consider the original quip to be misrepresentative, but you are swinging for the fences of the opposite field when you describe Bennett's play so far as being "fantastic" and "gifted". He's coming off of a major injury and it's unlikely that he gets anywhere close potential this season. Then you have to factor in DB, which you never do, and he'll have to do so from the 4th line while Bulletproof Glass chases pucks.

Bennett had played fantastic this year. It's why everybody wanted him on the top line, and he eventually got there.

I don't know why you're projecting what DB will do with BB this year. It has absolutely nothing to do with his value as a draft pick to date.

 

[billybudd]

I'm saying that using a stat that clearly isn't his forte as the only basis for evaluating him is dishonest and misrepresentative. Remember that Hemsky guy, who the board had a collective conniption fit over when we didn't acquire him for Sid's line at the deadline? 7 goals in 55 games. With considerably more minutes at ES and on the PP than Bennett.

Now why would people want that?

Hemsky is bigger, stronger and more skilled than Gibbons and was perceived to be a cheap acquisition. Those are extremely low bars to clear. Lee Stemniak clears the same bars easily. Hell, every player in the organization clears at least one of them.

That Hemsky has been unable to finish for many years is the crux of why he was perceived to be cheap relative somebody like Kesler. It's central to his evaluation, not handwaved away when making it.

Hemsky is seen as having a seriously flawed performance in the core responsibilities his job. Correctly, imo. We just happened to have a much more flawed guy filling the role in question at the time.

Looking at Bennett and pretending his inability to finish is somehow off-base when judging his job performance is like looking at Adams and saying "well, skating's not his game, so we'll just forget that he can't do it."

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I was talking about this year.

The point is that picking a stat that isn't a player's strong suit even in a best-case scenario is misrepresentative. Bennett isn't and has never been a goal-scorer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't looked fantastic out there. He's a gifted playmaker, smart, plays physical and is responsible in his own end.

Really. It's like judging Harrington on his production or Malkin on his hits.

When he's said to be the solution to Sid's RW this year, like you have on a number of times in the past, stating that he hasn't scored many goals is relevant.

 

[Waffle Fries]

Looking at Bennett and pretending his inability to finish is somehow off-base when judging his job performance is like looking at Adams and saying "well, skating's not his game, so we'll just forget that he can't do it."

To judge a playmaker mainly based off of his goal scoring stats (as the quote in that article did) is off-base.

I also think claiming he has an "inability to finish" is disingenuous. He only has 44 shots on goal in his career. Right now he's sitting at a career 9.1% shooting percentage (He was at 10% last season). That's not good, but it's not terrible either especially when you consider who he's played with. No one he's spent a significant amount of time with has the ability to set up a player for good scoring chances.

It's only slightly lower than Dupuis (9.9) who's had the chance to play alongside the best playmaker in the world to give him glorious, empty-net chances almost on a game-to-game basis. Stempniak only has a career shooting percentage of 10.5% and that's only because of the insane outlier of his first 18 games with the Coyotes when he was shooting at 29.2%. So do those players have an inability to finish as well? Because those two have been the only other options for Crosby's line this season.

If Bennett's shot can beat Lundqvist, it can beat anyone. Let's wait until he has 100 career shots on goal before we make any definitive statements like he has an "inability to finish." But the main point is his game isn't predicated on scoring goals. He's a playmaker first, and he's a damn good one.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I think, to sum, that it's far, far too early to judge either way on Bennett.

I know it seems like he's been in the system forever. But the guy has barely cut his teeth. Not just in the NHL... but in pro hockey. Period.

I personally think that he shows a mountain of promise. But I also recognize that that could mean exactly nothing. Especially with all of these injuries and time missed.

 

[Fordy]

go back and watch the highlights of game 3 against boston and tell me who besides malkin and crosby was producing more opportunities than bennett

 

[billybudd]

To judge a playmaker mainly based off of his goal scoring stats (as the quote in that article did) is off-base.

I also think claiming he has an "inability to finish" is disingenuous. He only has 44 shots on goal in his career. Right now he's sitting at a career 9.1% shooting percentage (He was at 10% last season). That's not good, but it's not terrible either especially when you consider who he's played with. No one he's spent a significant amount of time with has the ability to set up a player for good scoring chances.

It's only slightly lower than Dupuis (9.9) who's had the chance to play alongside the best playmaker in the world to give him glorious, empty-net chances almost on a game-to-game basis. Stempniak only has a career shooting percentage of 10.5% and that's only because of the insane outlier of his first 18 games with the Coyotes when he was shooting at 29.2%. So do those players have an inability to finish as well? Because those two have been the only other options for Crosby's line this season.

If Bennett's shot can beat Lundqvist, it can beat anyone. Let's wait until he has 100 career shots on goal before we make any definitive statements like he has an "inability to finish." But the main point is his game isn't predicated on scoring goals. He's a playmaker first, and he's a damn good one.

There's nothing disingenuous about judging someone who's being suggested as a fixture on the top two lines on his ability to produce, which, again, is the job.

What you and RRP are doing here is no different from saying, "well, Orpik's job isn't to be able to make a breakout pass, so we'll ignore that he can't and pretend everything's right with him." If a D is making soft clears up the wall that get intercepted, that's a problem, no matter what "type" of player he is.

It is in no way, shape or form out of bounds to use Bennett's 4 goals in 38 games in judging him as a draft pick expected to be a fixture in the top 6. It is extremely disingenuous to handwave this and pretend it doesn't exist because "he doesn't do that."

It's probably also worth pointing out that Pascal Dupuis, who you brought up as an example of a player afforded privileges Bennett has not been, was scoring at quadruple the clip Bennett was at the same age, with luminaries as Walz and Laaksonen on his center and left--this on a team that often played a zero forechecker trap once the score was 1-0 or even tied.

 

[Shady Machine]

I'm with Billybud on RRP's weird comparison:

Judging Bennett on goal scoring is like judging Harrington on production?

That's quite the stretch. A top 6 winger, regardless of playmaker, sniper, etc should be scoring goals more than a defensive dman (admittedly Harrington has SOME offensive upside) should be producing points. This means that it is more of Bennett's job to score goals than it is Harrington's job to score points or Malkin's job to hit people. It's common sense.

That said, using Bennett's goals scored in x games is an inappropriate way to discuss his value or performance as an NHL player thus far. His usage has been sporadic and all over the lineup. Give him consistent linemates and then let's judge again.

 

[Waffle Fries]

There's nothing disingenuous about judging someone who's being suggested as a fixture on the top two lines on his ability to produce, which, again, is the job.

What you and RRP are doing here is no different from saying, "well, Orpik's job isn't to be able to make a breakout pass, so we'll ignore that he can't and pretend everything's right with him." If a D is making soft clears up the wall that get intercepted, that's a problem, no matter what "type" of player he is.

It is in no way, shape or form out of bounds to use Bennett's 4 goals in 38 games in judging him as a draft pick expected to be a fixture in the top 6. It is extremely disingenuous to handwave this and pretend it doesn't exist because "he doesn't do that."

It's probably also worth pointing out that Pascal Dupuis, who you brought up as an example of a player afforded privileges Bennett has not been, was scoring at quadruple the clip Bennett was at the same age, with luminaries as Walz and Laaksonen on his center and left--this on a team that often played a zero forechecker trap once the score was 1-0 or even tied.

You claim that the analogy of Joe Thornton only having 9 goals this season has nothing to do with Bennett, yet throw out Brooks Orpik and the breakout pass like it is somehow more relevant.

I don't understand how you can't see that judging a playmaker only on his goal totals is incredibly misleading. As is your claim based on a sample size of 44 shots on goal that he has an inability to finish.

As for Dupuis you failed to mention that he played 42 more games, had 118 more shots on goal, and averaged 3 minutes more a game. Those factors may have something to do with the comparative goal totals at the "same age."

 

[billybudd]

You claim that the analogy of Joe Thornton only having 9 goals this season has nothing to do with Bennett, yet throw out Brooks Orpik and the breakout pass like it is somehow more relevant.

I don't understand how you can't see that judging a playmaker only on his goal totals is incredibly misleading. As is your claim based on a sample size of 44 shots on goal that he has an inability to finish.

As for Dupuis you failed to mention that he played 42 more games, had 118 more shots on goal, and averaged 3 minutes more a game. Those factors may have something to do with the comparative goal totals at the "same age."

You act like a player's shot total is some cosmic accident. Generating shots is a skill. Being unable to do so is a problem.

That Bennett generates half the shots per game that undrafted Pascal Dupuis did at the same age, in a less conservative system, spending much of his time with better players (little tip: Bennett's most-frequent linemates in the NHL have been Evgeni Malkin, James Neal and Brandon Sutter...I think nothing of Sutter, but he's better than Wes Walz was), is not a feather in his cap. It's a knock against Shero's drafting--thusfar (which is what the article is looking at).

That Bennett has yet to get good looks at the net at the rate a supposed top 6 forward should is not the only thing that matters. But it does matter when you're judging the results of Shero draft picks.

As far as Thornton goes, when Bennett starts averaging 60 assists per season, feel free to start using him as a comparable. At present, Bennett has 2 on the year.

If you're wondering why Michael rips the guy mercilessly it's because people like yourself and RRP make hilariously extreme comparisons between him and guys that he's not shown to even be in the same dimension as (Thornton, Ovechkin, Hossa, etc). If you like the guy so much, these comparisons do far more harm than good. You may as well start comparing Tom Wilson to Mark Messier.

Bennett isn't even Saad at this point. Ovechkin...Thornton...Hossa...Bennett can't even see them from where he is right now, so can we please quit pretending Shero drafted one of those guys until it looks like he did?

 

[Waffle Fries]

You act like a player's shot total is some cosmic accident. Generating shots is a skill. Being unable to do so is a problem.

That Bennett generates half the shots per game that undrafted Pascal Dupuis did at the same age, in a less conservative system, spending much of his time with better players (little tip: Bennett's most-frequent linemates in the NHL have been Evgeni Malkin, James Neal and Brandon Sutter...I think nothing of Sutter, but he's better than Wes Walz was), is not a feather in his cap. It's a knock against Shero's drafting--thusfar (which is what the article is looking at).

That Bennett has yet to get good looks at the net at the rate a supposed top 6 forward should is not the only thing that matters. But it does matter when you're judging the results of Shero draft picks.

As far as Thornton goes, when Bennett starts averaging 60 assists per season, feel free to start using him as a comparable. At present, Bennett has 2 on the year.

If you're wondering why Michael rips the guy mercilessly it's because people like yourself and RRP make hilariously extreme comparisons between him and guys that he's not shown to even be in the same dimension as (Thornton, Ovechkin, Hossa, etc). If you like the guy so much, these comparisons do far more harm than good. You may as well start comparing Tom Wilson to Mark Messier.

Bennett isn't even Saad at this point. Ovechkin...Thornton...Hossa...Bennett can't even see them from where he is right now, so can we please quit pretending Shero drafted one of those guys until it looks like he did?

No one is comparing him as a player to Thornton. No one has ever said he was in the same dimension as Thornton or Hossa or Ovechkin or whatever other star player in the league you want to name. Comparing a situation and comparing a player are two completely different things. The idea of the Thornton analogy is to show that it's ridiculous to judge a playmaker based on goal totals, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't like to ignore what's happening on the ice or a player's role in favor of stats.

If you want to say Bennett should shoot more that's fine, I think Crosby should shoot more too, but statements like that he has an "inability to finish" aren't supported by much of anything. Also, shot selection is a skill. Shooting for the sake of shooting regardless of where you are on the ice isn't.

 

[Shady Machine]

Thornton has eleven 20 goal seasons out of 14 full seasons and 340 career goals. Using his goals per game this year as a comparison to Bennett's situation is definitely cherry picking stats.

My point with this statement is that even if you don't think it's fair to judge Bennett by his goal scoring in the NHL (which I mostly agree with) using Thornton as an example doesn't really help your case as much as you think.

 

[Tender Rip]

I'm with Billybud on RRP's weird comparison

I seriously cannot think anyone isn't - including RRP.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

It's not a ridiculous point to bring up the fact that Bennett hasn't really done anything in his time up. Granted, he's been tossed around the lineup (see also: Bylsma'd) and he's been consistently hurt or recovering from injuries since he's sort of graduated to the NHL, but the point remains. For a guy many are touting as the answer in the discussion about problems on our wings, he really hasn't done much of anything. I like Bennett as a prospect, a lot. I think he plays a well-rounded style of hockey, and he's got the skill to succeed. That being said, the jury is still out on the kid until he A. is given a legit shot to succeed by Bylsma, and B. he starts to produce like a legitimate scoring winger. There's only so many times you can excuse a guy's lack of production because you like the kid and are high on his potential. I think he's likely to be a very good, impact player for us moving forward, but I don't know if he's the answer in terms of a scoring line guy. I think he's more of a 2nd/3rd line guy who could play well on either line. I don't think he's a lock to be the answer for Sid's wing, but then again, we've had Dupuis there for half a decade. Bennett could be the third wheel on Sid's wing if we land Sid a legit, stud winger for the long haul. Kunitz is getting up there, and he plays a type of game that's going to see a dip in production pretty soon. He's not going to be around forever, and that fact makes it even more urgent that Shero starts to fix the problems in our top six. Fix, not cover up with band-aids and duct tape.

All in all, Bennett's good, but I don't think if he's "savior of our top-six" good. At least not right now.

 

[billybudd]

No one is comparing him as a player to Thornton. No one has ever said he was in the same dimension as Thornton or Hossa or Ovechkin or whatever other star player in the league you want to name. Comparing a situation and comparing a player are two completely different things. The idea of the Thornton analogy is to show that it's ridiculous to judge a playmaker based on goal totals, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't like to ignore what's happening on the ice or a player's role in favor of stats.

If you want to say Bennett should shoot more that's fine, I think Crosby should shoot more too, but statements like that he has an "inability to finish" aren't supported by much of anything. Also, shot selection is a skill. Shooting for the sake of shooting regardless of where you are on the ice isn't.

You are ignoring what happens on the ice. You're ignoring what Bennett has actually done in favor of what you think he might be able to do if x, y and z happen. This in response to an article that's explicitly looking at results of forwards drafted by Ray Shero and not projections of forwards drafted by Ray Shero.

Shot selection's indeed a skill, but if Bennett a) has shown excellent shot selection and b) has shown he can finish, why is his shooting percentage so low? Selective shooters that can finish tend to convert at an extremely high rate.

These excuses you're making is more pretending away of results because you don't like what they say (not unlike the notion that undrafted Pascal Dupuis' superior production at the same age was a result of having a softer landing in the NHL than Bennett has experienced).

Saying Bennett will come around is one thing. Saying he has, to date, concretely vindicated Shero's drafting and development of forwards is quite another and thoroughly impossible to substantiate.

 

[JTG]

I do not think we have seen enough of Beau Bennett both healthy, and in a defined role long enough to really base any sort of determination on him.

 

[eXile59]

I do not think we have seen enough of Beau Bennett both healthy, and in a defined role long enough to really base any sort of determination on him.

Wrong. He had 12 games this season and didn't score one hattrick. Trade him for a 4th rounder while he has value. Completely ignore that despite his point production he created more scoring chances in those 12 games than anyone not named Kunitz or Neal.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Hemsky is bigger, stronger and more skilled than Gibbons and was perceived to be a cheap acquisition. Those are extremely low bars to clear. Lee Stemniak clears the same bars easily. Hell, every player in the organization clears at least one of them.

People targeted Hemsky because in spite of his low goal totals, they believed that as a talented stickhandler and playmaker he could hang onto the puck and create on his own.

That Hemsky has been unable to finish for many years is the crux of why he was perceived to be cheap relative somebody like Kesler. It's central to his evaluation, not handwaved away when making it.

Hemsky's goal totals of late have nothing to do with his value. Hemsky has NEVER been a goal scorer, but he was nevertheless considered an elite winger.

If you were to evaluate Hemsky in '05-'06 and based it entirely on the fact that he only scored 19 goals, you would be misrepresenting him by ignoring what made him elite.

Looking at Bennett and pretending his inability to finish is somehow off-base when judging his job performance is like looking at Adams and saying "well, skating's not his game, so we'll just forget that he can't do it."

It would be great if Bennett had more of a goal scoring touch. Fortunately, it's not his bread and butter, and every other aspect of his game is so good that it's hardly a damning criticism...which is clearly what makes him different from a slug like Adams.

If you're wondering why Michael rips the guy mercilessly it's because people like yourself and RRP make hilariously extreme comparisons between him and guys that he's not shown to even be in the same dimension as (Thornton, Ovechkin, Hossa, etc). If you like the guy so much, these comparisons do far more harm than good. You may as well start comparing Tom Wilson to Mark Messier.

It's called reductio ad absurdum, friend.