PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I would have liked to see 1 more year from him. But hard to argue that Gillis was better.
Post-Game Talk: 18/19 Endless boilerplate arguments regarding Management thread | Pt. V. Oil up your mouse wheel.
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
- Status
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I would have liked to see 1 more year from him. But hard to argue that Gillis was better.
Listening to Gillis I am curious as to when his methodological scouting changes went into effect and if they were continued/incorporated into Bennings structure. The sense I got from Gillis was that this didn't happen until very late in his tenure.
Is it possible that the one thing The Benning Regime has been pretty competent at is actually a by-product of systemic change brought forward by Gillis/Gillman?
Is it possible that the one thing The Benning Regime has been pretty competent at is actually a by-product of systemic change brought forward by Gillis/Gillman?
This is correct.
And the notion that there are scouts who 'see what nobody else sees' or know which of these 6 reasonable selections are going to turn out is BS.
But it isn't totally random. There are traps that bad scouts fall into - drafting for grit, drafting big 'project' players, etc - that good scouts don't. And if you have 7 picks and throw 7 darts at the dart board you're far more likely to hit a bullseye than a scout who throws 4 darts at the board and just chucks the other 3 out the window on a Mackenze Stewart (as an example).
Being a quality scout is less about being a great judge of talent than it is just being aware enough to understand trends and not fall into dumb traps.
Melvin
21/12/05
Eric Crawford was essentially put in charge of the 2013 draft and fired by Benning after the 2015 draft. How much influence he had on 2014 and 2015 is unknown, but i suspect a lot and not much, respectively.
Melvin
21/12/05
Ya, no I don't agree with that.
Here's something to chew on:
2008-2013 drafts:
League average GP per pick: 87.1
St.dev: 149.9
N: 1126 picks
Canucks average GP per pick: 41.4
St.dev: 90.2
N: 37 picks
Mean difference has a P value of .0654 or nearly significant at 95% CI, significant at 90% CI. The effect size is .369 (cohen's d), which can be interpreted as about halfway between a small and medium effect size. The numbers bear out the Canucks were either extremely unlucky or extremely bad at drafting. I view it as the former, you clearly view it as the latter. Not sure we are gonna resolve this anytime soon.
Edit: Also for further context, here's how NHL teams stack up for average GP/pick from 2008-2013:
I'll concede that Vancouver's regular season success put them at a disadvantage, particularly in the first round but still, those are some grizzly results.
Surely you realize that even if data is 100% distributed at random, there will still be a "result" where someone will finish in "last" and someone will finish in "first," yes? The fact that Vancouver finished last in no way argues against the idea that the data is essentially random noise. I have never won the lottery whereas I read in the news that some guy recently won it for a second time, but my "grizzly results" that put me in last place in lottery winnings doesn't actually mean a thing.
For the purposes of measuring expected value, let us define a "success" as a player who plays 250 NHL games. I am picking this number because we have used 100 games in the past and others have felt that it was too low a bar. I have tried this analysis with several criteria though (including ice time, points, etc.) and it makes little appreciable difference. So let's use 250 NHL games this time. Feel free to suggest something else if you wish. Now, here is the % of picks who make it to 250 NHL games by pick:
Note: I am removing goalies from this.
You can fit this curve pretty nicely to get a formula which will calculate a rough % of "success" at each pick, which you can then use to calculate the expected number of "hits" for each NHL team based on where they are selecting. Obviously this isn't perfect because the players are different each draft and there's no such thing as a perfect model, yadda yadda yadda.
For the period of 2008-2013 these are the results:
| Team | Picks | xSuccess | Success | +/- |
| OTT | 40 | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| ANA | 41 | 9 | 11 | 2 |
| WSH | 36 | 7 | 8 | 1 |
| MIN | 33 | 7 | 8 | 1 |
| NYI | 42 | 10 | 11 | 1 |
| SJS | 37 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| TBL | 37 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| CBJ | 38 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| NYR | 33 | 7 | 6 | -1 |
| LAK | 40 | 8 | 7 | -1 |
| NSH | 43 | 8 | 7 | -1 |
| WPG | 19 | 4 | 3 | -1 |
| BUF | 44 | 9 | 8 | -1 |
| NJD | 36 | 7 | 5 | -2 |
| ATL | 22 | 5 | 3 | -2 |
| PHI | 30 | 5 | 3 | -2 |
| BOS | 33 | 6 | 4 | -2 |
| CGY | 36 | 7 | 5 | -2 |
| DET | 40 | 7 | 4 | -3 |
| COL | 34 | 8 | 5 | -3 |
| CHI | 47 | 9 | 6 | -3 |
| VAN | 33 | 6 | 3 | -3 |
| STL | 38 | 8 | 5 | -3 |
| CAR | 33 | 7 | 4 | -3 |
| FLA | 45 | 10 | 7 | -3 |
| TOR | 39 | 8 | 4 | -4 |
| EDM | 45 | 11 | 7 | -4 |
| PHX | 36 | 8 | 4 | -4 |
| DAL | 35 | 7 | 3 | -4 |
| MTL | 37 | 7 | 3 | -4 |
| PIT | 32 | 6 | 1 | -5 |
I should clarify a few things because sometimes, especially when posting from my phone, I can speak in strong and dismissive ways which is to my own detriment when someone intelligent responds. When I say "it's all random" what I mean is "I have not seen anything convincing that suggests it is anything but random (i.e. to suggest there is 'skill.')" And when I say "there is no skill" what I really mean is "there is no observable difference in skill between different NHL GM's based upon the data we have."
No matter what method you use, including your very own analysis that you posted (thank you by the way,) there is nothing in any of the results that IMO cannot be explained by simple random variance. I believe that if you were to distribute the results randomly, you would see a similar distribution as to what we actually observe here. The "top" teams got a couple more players than expected based on where they were selecting, the bottom teams got a couple fewer, and the middle teams got more or less the amount we would expect. I could probably prove this more convincingly with a simulation, but the potato illustrates this fairly decently as well. Simply drafting players based on a rudimentary linear equation does not yield worse results than the majority of NHL teams. This suggests to me that whatever "skill" is involved does not vary strongly between teams and is highly overstated.
There are a handful of "reasonable" selections at each spot and whether or not you get a "hit" is basically luck. If there was a significant amount of skill to it beyond that, I would expect teams to be able to beat the potato on a consistent basis, such that the results of the potato are laughable and easily the worst results when compared to the results of NHL teams. This is not the case.
** EDIT **
If I were doing this for my day job I would probably come up with some way to "project" how many games I expect each player to play so that I can more accurately reflect the "hits" accounting for the fact that Hutton will get to 250 GP, etc. I am too lazy to do it at this present time but it's something to think about if this conversation continues.
Last edited:
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
This is how I view the Canucks scouting management for the relevant time frame, regardless of who the GM was
2000-2010 - Ron Delorme era
2011-2012 - Gillis restructuring years, headed up by Eric Crawford
2013-2014 - Crawford's short tenure
2015-2016 - Benning restructuring years, headed up by John Weisbrod
2017-present - Judd Bracket's era
Keep in mind that 3-4 years in I think the only thing Benning hired were his son and John Weisbrod... and I think there's been another addition or two in the last year or two. Benning's biggest impact on scouting was firing Eric Crawford, then after a year or two stepping back and putting Judd Bracket in charge.
So it's debatable but personally I would say yes to your last question, but at the very least Benning didn't have to pick up the same mess left over from Burke that Gillis did.
Surely you realize that even if data is 100% distributed at random, there will still be a "result" where someone will finish in "last" and someone will finish in "first," yes? The fact that Vancouver finished last in no way argues against the idea that the data is essentially random noise. I have never won the lottery whereas I read in the news that some guy recently won it for a second time, but my "grizzly results" that put me in last place in lottery winnings doesn't actually mean a thing.
For the purposes of measuring expected value, let us define a "success" as a player who plays 250 NHL games. I am picking this number because we have used 100 games in the past and others have felt that it was too low a bar. I have tried this analysis with several criteria though (including ice time, points, etc.) and it makes little appreciable difference. So let's use 250 NHL games this time. Feel free to suggest something else if you wish. Now, here is the % of picks who make it to 250 NHL games by pick:
Note: I am removing goalies from this.
You can fit this curve pretty nicely to get a formula which will calculate a rough % of "success" at each pick, which you can then use to calculate the expected number of "hits" for each NHL team based on where they are selecting. Obviously this isn't perfect because the players are different each draft and there's no such thing as a perfect model, yadda yadda yadda.
For the period of 2008-2013 these are the results:
So here we have the Canucks with ~6 expected players and they in fact got 3 (Hodgson+Connauton+Horvat.) If you don't like my criteria then you are free to suggest different criteria and I will do it again. I realize that Hodgson is not generally considered a "hit" so I am more than happy to run this in various ways based on whatever criteria we want to agree upon, but I really don't think it makes much difference to my overall point. The reason why the results are skewed towards the minuses, by the way, is because there are players in the recent drafts who have not made it yet to 250 GP but likely will (e.g. Ben Hutton,) so you can probably add 1 to each team and you get something closer to what the ultimate result will be.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Team Picks xSuccess Success +/- OTT 40 8 10 2 ANA 41 9 11 2 WSH 36 7 8 1 MIN 33 7 8 1 NYI 42 10 11 1 SJS 37 6 6 0 TBL 37 8 8 0 CBJ 38 8 8 0 NYR 33 7 6 -1 LAK 40 8 7 -1 NSH 43 8 7 -1 WPG 19 4 3 -1 BUF 44 9 8 -1 NJD 36 7 5 -2 ATL 22 5 3 -2 PHI 30 5 3 -2 BOS 33 6 4 -2 CGY 36 7 5 -2 DET 40 7 4 -3 COL 34 8 5 -3 CHI 47 9 6 -3 VAN 33 6 3 -3 STL 38 8 5 -3 CAR 33 7 4 -3 FLA 45 10 7 -3 TOR 39 8 4 -4 EDM 45 11 7 -4 PHX 36 8 4 -4 DAL 35 7 3 -4 MTL 37 7 3 -4 PIT 32 6 1 -5
I should clarify a few things because sometimes, especially when posting from my phone, I can speak in strong and dismissive ways which is to my own detriment when someone intelligent responds. When I say "it's all random" what I mean is "I have not seen anything convincing that suggests it is anything but random (i.e. to suggest there is 'skill.')" And when I say "there is no skill" what I really mean is "there is no observable difference in skill between different NHL GM's based upon the data we have."
No matter what method you use, including your very own analysis that you posted (thank you by the way,) there is nothing in any of the results that IMO cannot be explained by simple random variance. I believe that if you were to distribute the results randomly, you would see a similar distribution as to what we actually observe here. The "top" teams got a couple more players than expected based on where they were selecting, the bottom teams got a couple fewer, and the middle teams got more or less the amount we would expect. I could probably prove this more convincingly with a simulation, but the potato illustrates this fairly decently as well. Simply drafting players based on a rudimentary linear equation does not yield worse results than the majority of NHL teams. This suggests to me that whatever "skill" is involved does not vary strongly between teams and is highly overstated.
There are a handful of "reasonable" selections at each spot and whether or not you get a "hit" is basically luck. If there was a significant amount of skill to it beyond that, I would expect teams to be able to beat the potato on a consistent basis, such that the results of the potato are laughable and easily the worst results when compared to the results of NHL teams. This is not the case.
Lots here, will dive in and respond tomorrow. Brain too tired to math right now.
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
- Dec 14, 2002
- 6,371
- 2,327
If drafting and development failure is worthy of firing everyone involved, be it Gillis, Gilman, Crawford, and Henning... does drafting and development success not make it worthy for extending Benning, Weisbrod and Brackett?
Virtanen, McCann, Pettersen, Boeser. 4 NHL players, so far.
How do you rationalize the last regime deserved firing based on poor drafting results despite their other strengths... and yet, you are not a current "Benning Bro" given the drafting results despite their other weaknesses? We have Pettersson and Boeser - two potential franchise players... Virtanen, top 9 player... and McCann, top 9 player. You should be pleased with Benning, no? You wanted better drafting, and you got it.
Melvin
21/12/05
Melvin
21/12/05
Virtanen was 6th, that’s a dud.
McCann was ok at 24, still tbd on what he is. But Benning traded him for an AHL level defenseman.
Boeser is a home run and a feather in Benning’s cap, as much as I dislike it.
Pettersson was a 5th overall pick, which is entirely reasonable to find an elite talent. I give him credit for that, though not as much as some like to.
That list also ignores Juolevi, another poor selection in addition to Virtanen.
Overall Benning’s first round is decent based on where they picked. Pettersson and Boeser are hits, Virtanen, Juolevi, and McCann (traded) are misses. Obviously these are better results than Gillis, but I’m also cognizant that we are drafting much higher in the first round. These are largely the results of his inadvertent tanking, not any significant improvement in scouting (though it does seem at least somewhat improved).
I’m against Benning for reasons other than his drafting, I mainly argue that it’s not as good as his more enthusiastic supporters claim it is (the Palmus, the Brisebois’, the Gadjovic’s, etc).
So when the Canucks finished last in the pacific division it could’ve just been random noise because statistically someone had to finish last?
I would also like to see a better metric than games played in the NHL to measure draft success. For example Connauton is terrible and shouldn’t ever be a positive example of someone’s drafting prowess but for some reason he has a ton of NHL games played.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,147
- 5,456
What's your rationale for McCann being a miss? Other than Pastrnak, no one drafted in the 20-25 subsequent picks has been much better. The fact that he was traded a year later is obviously irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a good pick at 24.
Where did I say the pick was a miss? I said he was an ok pick but the trade was a miss. The pick itself is neither a hit nor a miss.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,147
- 5,456
You said this:
"Overall Benning’s first round is decent based on where they picked. Pettersson and Boeser are hits, Virtanen, Juolevi, and McCann (traded) are misses."
The fact that McCann was traded is completely immaterial to the question of whether the "Benning's first round," the thing you are purporting to evaluate, is good or bad. You seem to be introducing a detail you know is irrelevant, but which you also know may appear relevant on first glance, to strengthen your argument. That's disingenuous.
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,016
- 7,024
Should Pittsburgh’s GM get credit for drafting Marcus Naslund because he turned out to be a superstar?
Or should he be criticized for trading him for a bag of pucks?
Benning doesn’t get points for drafting McCann because he traded him for next to nothing. This effectively demonstrated that Benning did not accurately assess McCann’s value.
Or should he be criticized for trading him for a bag of pucks?
Benning doesn’t get points for drafting McCann because he traded him for next to nothing. This effectively demonstrated that Benning did not accurately assess McCann’s value.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,147
- 5,456
Yes, and yes. And it was fairly obvious for the rhetoric following the trade that Benning overvalued Gudbranson, in which case undervaluing McCann was not, as you claim, a necessary condition for making it.
NuxFan09
Registered User
I disagree. Connauton is a success because, no matter what you personally think of him, he has carved out an NHL career for himself. A player like Connauton is absolutely a success compared to drafting a player who doesn't play in the NHL at all, or just gets a cup of coffee here and there (hence the games played threshold).
Connauton was absolutely a successful draft pick for Gillis and Co.
It’s hardly irrelevant when you give a player away weeks after his rookie season for a player that is an unmitigated tire fire. You can argue whether it’s *equivalent* to drafting and I’d probably agree with you, but don’t speak as if I didn’t point out what I was critiquing Benning for. I pointed out that MCCann was an “ok pick” and then specified (traded) as my reason for viewing the pick as a miss. I showed my work, you may disagree with it, but I was hardly being disingenuous.
Melvin
21/12/05
It's not completely immaterial or even a little bit immaterial. Benning had just taken over as GM in 2014 and the sheer fact that he traded away McCann (and Forsling) so quickly indicates that he was not particularly enamoured with those selections. How many of the players drafted in 2015+ has he traded away?
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
You also have to consider that Gillis' batting average with top 10 draft picks is better than Benning's If you're going to include Virtanen as a top 9, you also have to consider that Hodgson did perform in Buffalo before his career ended as a 2nd liner (points though liability defensively). He performed well enough to get a pretty substantial contract, regardless if he was later sucked or not. Ehrhoff was great for us and only a few years later absolute trash. Horvat was a slam dunk win, and also Hodgson was traded for Kassian who was a 30 point player, which is better than anything Virtanen has done. You also have guys like our #1 D Tanev being an amateur FA signing by Gillis. You can't just dismiss a prospect being brought into the system because it was via free agency instead of the draft.
Even if you suggest Hodgson/Kassian were absolute trash and should be regarded as complete failures, Virtanen should be lumped in with that as well giving Gillis 50% in the top 10 with Benning having a stellar 33%
Boeser was a great pick, McCann was very good as well though Benning may not have been a believer or just overrated Gudbranson, or both. However, Boeser was also pushed for by a Gillis hire and that needs to be taken into account. You don't just take over as GM and turn over a scouting staff overnight. Every team in the league wants to improve their scouting staff.
Benning's later round picks haven't worked out aside from Tryamkin who they managed to piss off by bargaining in bad faith so he left the NHL. Now we do have a good prospect pool, but people are acting like Lind, Gadjovich, Gaudette and Demko are going to make the NHL. We've seen this before with guys like Connauton, Subban, Jensen, Shinkaruk etc. IMO these picks are the most important to judge Benning's drafting. I do agree to some extent that it's too early to completely write off Benning's picks as there have been some good ones, but they're still just entering the pro system now and we need time to judge them.
I don't think Gillis' drafting was good by any means, but he did trade a lot of picks away to try to compete which is standard, and damn near won. He also wanted to then sell off the pieces of the near championship team to recoup those assets and instead we picked up Benning who tried to compete. It doesn't matter how good your drafting is, if Gillis picked at 33% and Benning picked at 50%, if Gillis has more picks he still might acquire more NHL players. If Benning is here for his scouting prowess, he should be the head of scouting and not the GM. Honestly I would be fine with that, I don't think he's the best scout in the world but I think he's probably fine.
I really would have liked to see what Gillis could do with stockpiled draft picks from a rebuild with a new scouting staff with newly hired Brackett and promoted Crawford. I think Crawford should at least get some credit for Tryamkin, though I don't think Gillis would have actually drafted him as he doesn't like Russian picks. Maybe that's just for first rounders though. You also have to consider how Gillis and Gilman ran the team. Gillis was a guy who wanted to surround himself with competent people. That's why you had guys like Gilman having a huge part in the Canucks' management. Even if Gillis is the worst talent evaluator in history, I truly believe he would have been able to put together a solid scouting staff as he would absolutely identify good and bad scouts using an analytics approach. Even if you think analytics in hockey are trash, in terms of hiring practices and scouting performances it's another story.
TLDR, Benning is fine but not great and his weaknesses in literally every other aspect of team building should disqualify him as GM rather than something like head scout or AGM overseeing scouting. Gillis' picks were underwhelming but they were late picks and many were traded away to compete for the cup which we almost won, and his plan was to recoup those picks. They also aren't necessarily as bad as people make them out to be, especially when you include Tanev which you absolutely should. Benning squandered the assets we had for fringe NHLers rather than acquiring picks which is supposed to be his strength.
You're exaggerating Benning's drafting and not taking into account the circumstances revolving Gillis' drafting. You're also putting too much importance on Gillis' scouting ability as his job was to assemble as couting staff, something he was in the process of doing. This is not a thing that is done overnight or else scouting would be trivial with very few misses in the first 2 rounds for every team in the league.
Sorry about the long TLDR, but I didn't know how to make it shorter because I articulate at the level of a teenager/politician.
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,016
- 7,024
Hodgson was a good pick, he played well before his back caught up to him.
Daddy issues yes, but it’s hard to screen for that in a prospect.
Especially when you consider a lot of people wanted Kyle Beach with that pick, ironically the exact type of player that Benning would go for.
Daddy issues yes, but it’s hard to screen for that in a prospect.
Especially when you consider a lot of people wanted Kyle Beach with that pick, ironically the exact type of player that Benning would go for.
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
- Dec 14, 2002
- 6,371
- 2,327
@Intangibos, I completely agree. My main argument is that I don't think Gillis deserved to be fired. It was suggested he did based on his drafting record... My main point was, despite his strengths, if Gillis deserved to be fired for his drafting... what about Benning, despite his weaknesses?
In the end, a GM's influence on a given draft is marginal, at best. Gillis' main issue is that he waited too long to make drafting department changes, and that was highly correctable for a next time. Gilman said in an interview that he was responsible for the drafting department staff, so did Gillis really deserve to be fired? Hell no. After all, changes were made. It's not like Gillis and Gilman didn't realize a change was necessary... nor was it a case of too little, too late.
In the end, a GM's influence on a given draft is marginal, at best. Gillis' main issue is that he waited too long to make drafting department changes, and that was highly correctable for a next time. Gilman said in an interview that he was responsible for the drafting department staff, so did Gillis really deserve to be fired? Hell no. After all, changes were made. It's not like Gillis and Gilman didn't realize a change was necessary... nor was it a case of too little, too late.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: ECQF: Game 4 - New York Rangers @ Washington Capitals, 8pm ET (TBS, MSG)- Latest: KirkAlbuquerque
