18/19 MGMT thread VII. WARNING POST #25

[ProstheticConscience]

Last one now way over 1k. The love-in continues.

Click to read more...

 

[Pip]

BUT GILLIS

 

[Fire Benning]

A lot of users on this board have consistently outperformed the Canucks drafting under Benning in the SYTYCD threads as does @Melvin's algorithm. The notion that you have to be some old fart scouting savant to identify good amateur talent is nonsense.

Does the GM have a plan? Is he setting goals? Is he a good judge of talent and is he making smart moves to bring in good players? Is he a good leader for the organization? Is he setting goals and following through on them? Is he a good negotiator? That's what matters, and Benning has been a failure for all of those requirements in his tenure, full stop.

 

[Pavel96]

Time to shut it down.

 

[Pip]

I wouldn’t want my GM to spend a significant amount of time scouting kids. Moves at the pro level and overall team building/direction are much more important than team success.

Every year this management group talks about all the new exciting young players, getting significant depth for injuries and developing prospects the right way. Then the season starts and our depth sucks, most of the kids underperform, and the only developmental situation we have significant control over (Utica) becomes a barren disaster.

Rinse and repeat every season with a couple of impact prospects breaking through in Boeser and EP. We’re not getting closer to winning we’re just chugging along while the leftover players of quality get replaced with more expensive, shittier “mentors”

It is incredibly difficult to become an elite team and we’re not going to magically have the kids drag a terrible group to the promised land.

 

[ccjon]

This is a complex question because the NHL is an evolving organism where conventional wisdom that would’ve applied 10 or 20 years ago isn’t relevant today.

It has taken roughly a decade for organizations to adjust to the new CBA salary cap structure but a new normal has clearly taken shape. One that is decidedly less about wheeling and dealing and more about drafting and developing your own players. This is to say that the only sustainable way to fix the problem Gillis left is to draft and develop a contender virtually from scratch.

So your question becomes how long does it take to draft and develop a contender without taking any shortcuts? The team that I think is the best example of this is Winnipeg. Winnipeg inherited a lot of good young players so they didn’t start from scratch, I’d say they were a good 3-5 years ahead of where Benning started from when they became a team. Then they drafted well for 7 years to become the team they are today. A lot of things also went right for Winnipeg in the drafting so you can’t use their timeline as the benchmark. Reasonably I would say it takes 10-15 years but I think Benning will get it done in 6-7.

It takes 10-15 years to draft and build a contender? Benning will get it done in 6-7 years from today or when he was first hired?

 

[Canucker]

It takes 10-15 years to draft and build a contender? Benning will get it done in 6-7 years from today or when he was first hired?

Only took Gillis what? 4 years to get the team to the SC finals? He must be exceptional.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

It takes 10-15 years to draft and build a contender? Benning will get it done in 6-7 years from today or when he was first hired?

Yep those players you drafted have to develop into their potentials as well. From when he was first hired.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Only took Gillis what? 4 years to get the team to the SC finals? He must be exceptional.

Gillis didn’t build anything

 

[Ainec]

10-15 years is the barometer

can someone please pull up a gm that has presided over a mediocre club for that length of time?

and is this gm universally regarded as a trash gm that never holds that position again

 

[Melvin]

Time to shut it down.

Yeah. I think I'm done here.

 

[Canucker]

Gillis didn’t build anything

I guess that makes him an even bigger genius for miraculously turning a crappy Nonis built team into a Presidents Trophy winner and Cup finalist.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

I guess that makes him an even bigger genius for miraculously turning a crappy Nonis built team into a Presidents Trophy winner and Cup finalist.

It wasn’t crappy it was a great core when Gillis took over. I think that core would’ve had better results without Gillis. Look past 2011 and look at the full body of results. For what we had, not that great. When Benning took over they were past their primes for the most part and I think the mental toll of 2011 and the failure of Gillis to do what was needed to get them back to that level afterwards was responsible for a lot of the declines.

 

[Javaman]

At this point, I honestly can't fathom why a reasonable poster would respond to anything RMB has to say.

 

[Canucker]

It wasn’t crappy it was a great core when Gillis took over. I think that core would’ve had better results without Gillis. Look past 2011 and look at the full body of results. For what we had, not that great. When Benning took over they were past their primes for the most part and I think the mental toll of 2011 and the failure of Gillis to do what was needed to get them back to that level afterwards was responsible for a lot of the declines.

So, in your view Gillis was given everything on a platter, buggered it up and gave the mess to Benning? Gillis is to blame...still, and Benning is the victim?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

So, in your view Gillis was given everything on a platter, buggered it up and gave the mess to Benning? Gillis is to blame...still, and Benning is the victim?

I don’t think Benning is a victim per se. He just has a tough job. Now if we are talking about in the context of this sub forum yes I think he is the victim of unfair criticism.

 

[Javaman]

So, in your view Gillis was given everything on a platter, buggered it up and gave the mess to Benning? Gillis is to blame...still, and Benning is the victim?

Dude... don't do this to yourself lol

 

[Canucker]

I don’t think Benning is a victim per se. He just has a tough job. Now if we are talking about in the context of this sub forum yes I think he is the victim of unfair criticism.

I’m of the opinion he’s earned a healthy dose of the criticism directed his way.

 

[Canucker]

Dude... don't do this to yourself lol

lol...ok ok.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

At this point, I honestly can't fathom why a reasonable poster would respond to anything RMB has to say.

This.

It's not hard, folks.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Also, what's the average tenure of an NHL GM? 10-15 years? 5-7 years? Anyone know?

Such complete and total utter bullshit is posted around here in Benning's favour. He's already living on borrowed time.

I’ve been on our bandwagon since day one, and can’t remember a young group anywhere near to this. We have Demko and Depietro. Hughes, Juiolevi, Rathbone, Woo. Pettersson, Brock, Bo, Jake, Lind, Gadjovic, Dahlen. (And we are getting Jack ?Hughes this draft). We’ve never had such depth of talent at all the positions acquired by draft.

So Larry, here's a little preview of next season's MGMT thread around this time if Benning sticks around that long. Feel free to bookmark this page for future reference.

You, me and RMB will be here. I'll make the thread, make some smart-ass remark about how Benning couldn't find his own ass with both hands, RMB will still be doing his FOX news thing, and you'll make some rah-rah comments about Canucks fans or something. You're going to post some names from the prospect pool. You'll leave Lind and Gadjovic off your list as you'll have forgotten all about them by then, and you'll add whoever the team drafts in the 1st and probably 2nd round next year. You'll mention Pettersson, Boeser and probably Hughes again. You'll make some lame No True Scotsman stab at those of us who still lament the Canucks scraping the bottom of the standings, and then the next year we'll do it all over again.

Sound fun? It shouldn't. This is what happens when a GM can't run an NHL team worth shit.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

Also, what's the average tenure of an NHL GM? 10-15 years? 5-7 years? Anyone know?

If we are going by former Canucks GMs, post-Quinn at least 5-7 seems to be closer... though some souls get canned 4 years in like Nonis. Pre-Quinn, who got 10 years and a finals appearance, it looks like the Canucks GMs had a short leash of about 2-3 years except for Jake Milford who got 5 years and also had one of our three finals appearances.

I would think the 10-15 years for a GM would be the exception around the league with 5-7 a likelier average, but that's just conjecture... I'd be curious to see the actual stats myself.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

If we are going by former Canucks GMs, post-Quinn at least 5-7 seems to be closer... though some souls get canned 4 years in like Nonis. Pre-Quinn, who got 10 years and a finals appearance, it looks like the Canucks GMs had a short leash of about 2-3 years except for Jake Milford who got 5 years and also had one of our three finals appearances.

I would think the 10-15 years for a GM would be the exception around the league with 5-7 a likelier average, but that's just conjecture... I'd be curious to see the actual stats myself.

It was a rhetorical question.

Hockey GM tenure length | Health Geomatics Lab

 

[Bleach Clean]

Taking @Melvin's great work over to this thread for the purposes of continuing this discussion:



I believe I have posted this before. It is a graph illustrating the % of players taken at a given position who have reached 250 NHL games. This is since the beginning of the NHL Draft in the 60's.

Granted, 250 Games is an arbitrary bench mark, but I've done the same sort of analysis with many different values for N games or N points and it makes little difference. Suggest a different one to me if you wish.

With this, we can fit the data (looks like a logarithmic curve) and estimate a true probability for every selection, allowing us to calculate the expected value (EV - Expected value - Wikipedia) for Benning's drafts by summing the probabilities of getting a player at his picks.

Take for example the 2014 draft:

6th overall pick - 65%
24th - 42%
36 - 36%
66 - 25%
126 - 15%
156 - 11%
186 - 8%

Total Expected Value of the 2014 draft = 2.03

In other words, if drafting players were "random" events, with success probability based on historical averages, we would expect to get around 2 players from this draft who play 250 NHL games.

This is simply the baseline average. Benning's "skill" therefore can be inferred based upon how much better he does than "chance." If he does not get at least 2 players from this draft he has seen below-average results.

So, how about for all of his drafts then, 2014-2018?

I won't break them all down, but he has made 34 selections with a total expected value of 8.27. So this is his baseline. Based on nothing more than where he has been selecting in the draft, we should expect Benning to get around 8 players from the 2014-2018 drafts.

Will he get there? That's up for debate. Virtanen, McCann, Boeser and Pettersson are near-locks, so that gets him halfway there. If Hughes, Juolevi, Forsling and Gaudette make it then he hits that eight. If he gets any more than he has done better than expected, but it's hard to see it being by any sort of significance. Say he gets 10 players, and has thus done better than expected by 1.73. Is that significant enough to be considered a drafting guru and worthy of being the de facto President of an NHL team? You can decide. But these are the facts.

If you are wondering who has had the best expected value from these drafts, Arizona is at 10.25 (41 picks) and Buffalo at 10.21 (37) followed by Philadelphia (10.06/42,) Carolina (10.02/39,) and Toronto (9.75/42) Vancouver is in 8th mostly on the strength of the picks themselves, their actual number of selections (34) is lower than all teams ahead of them. At the low end of the scale you have Nashville (6.33/32,) Minnesota (5.82/33,) Washington (5.45/28,) and Pittsburgh, who is expected to get 4.33 players from their 25 selections.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Best and worst drafts in team history, based on my methodology outlined above, with the caveat that many players are still playing:

Top-10:

Year	GM	EV	Result	+/-
2004	David Nonis	0.99	4	3.01
1974	Phil Maloney	1.90	4	2.10
1994	Pat Quinn	2.10	4	1.90
1995	Pat Quinn	1.57	3	1.43
1978	Jake Milford	2.83	4	1.17
1981	Jake Milford	1.85	3	1.15
1980	Jake Milford	1.97	3	1.03
1979	Jake Milford	2.03	3	0.97
2001	Brian Burke	1.13	2	0.87
1998	Brian Burke	2.43	3	0.57

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bottom-10, Benning drafts excluded:

Year	GM	EV	Result	+/-
1984	Harold Neale	2.91	1	-1.91
1972	Bud Poile	2.85	1	-1.85
2002	Brian Burke	1.52	0	-1.52
1996	Pat Quinn	1.46	0	-1.46
2011	Michael Gillis	1.46	0	-1.46
1975	Phil Maloney	2.45	1	-1.45
2007	David Nonis	1.19	0	-1.19
2000	Brian Burke	1.12	0	-1.12
1986	Jack Gordon	2.07	1	-1.07
1987	Pat Quinn	1.97	1	-0.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is 2008 -2013, because Gillis:

Team	Picks	xSuccess	Success	Delta	Z
OTT	44	9.48	13	3.52	2.69
ANA	45	11.05	12	0.95	1.50
WSH	40	8.09	9	0.91	1.48
TBL	43	10.64	11	0.36	1.23
BUF	48	11.23	11	-0.23	0.96
MIN	38	8.51	8	-0.51	0.83
SJS	39	6.68	6	-0.68	0.75
NYR	35	7.70	7	-0.70	0.74
CAR	38	8.92	8	-0.92	0.64
WPG	23	5.28	4	-1.28	0.47
LAK	43	9.39	8	-1.39	0.42
CBJ	43	10.55	9	-1.55	0.35
ATL	25	5.77	4	-1.77	0.25
NYI	48	13.09	11	-2.09	0.10
STL	43	10.27	8	-2.27	0.02
NSH	49	10.43	8	-2.43	-0.06
CHI	52	10.60	8	-2.60	-0.14
CGY	39	8.75	6	-2.75	-0.21
NJD	39	7.90	5	-2.90	-0.27
PHI	36	6.97	4	-2.97	-0.31
DET	43	8.29	5	-3.29	-0.45
VAN	37	7.30	4	-3.30	-0.46
FLA	48	12.48	9	-3.48	-0.54
BOS	37	7.93	4	-3.93	-0.75
PHX	41	10.14	6	-4.14	-0.85
COL	40	9.93	5	-4.93	-1.21
TOR	42	9.09	4	-5.09	-1.28
EDM	49	13.17	8	-5.17	-1.32
PIT	37	7.40	2	-5.40	-1.43
DAL	39	9.53	4	-5.53	-1.48
MTL	40	8.93	3	-5.93	-1.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I kept Atlanta and Winnipeg separate, because I felt like it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, one more data table, as requested, all Canuck years by GM, with average and standard deviation

GM	EV	Hits	+/-	Z
Jake Milford	11.34	16.00	4.66	2.36
David Nonis	4.52	6.00	1.48	0.88
Pat Quinn	22.61	23.00	0.39	0.37
Phil Maloney	6.07	6.00	-0.07	0.16
Hal Laycoe,	3.56	3.00	-0.56	-0.07
Jack Gordon	4.70	4.00	-0.70	-0.13
Brian Burke	9.79	8.00	-1.79	-0.64
Bud Poile	8.09	6.00	-2.09	-0.78
Harold Neale	7.11	5.00	-2.11	-0.79
Michael Gillis	7.30	4.00	-3.30	-1.35

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Average: -0.41
St.Dev: 2.14

Obviously, Benning is currently at the bottom as none of his players have reached 250 games yet. Gillis also suffers from some disadvantage here. Hutton is at 236 games and even Gaunce could potentially get there eventually.

 

[Bleach Clean]

For those frustrated with the ending of the last MGMT thread:

Report OT, Flaming and Trolling posts. They will be dealt with. DO NOT Troll or Flame in kind. Push the issue to the MODS and we will handle it.