Player Discussion #93 - Sam Bennett

[Corpus X]

The year of the wafer thin mint.

 

[Anglesmith]

The only part of his post I responded to was the part where he said Bennett wasn't creating chances for himself and/or his teammates.

All I posted about was his scoring chances and how he was unlucky in the offensive end last season, nothing else.

But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.

What is it in his game that convinces you that he's unlucky and not just creating poor chances which he is not capable of converting? If you're saying he was just unlucky, then you're implying that if he does the same exact thing next season, he'll produce better. Is that what you think?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

AS, if we’re talking about Bennett generating consistent low scoring chances, does that not describe Gully’s system perfectly? In which case Bennett was doing exactly what was asked.

 

[The Gnome]

Bennett has to play "with his head on a swivel" in a sense. Kid has tunnel vision and routinely tries to do everything himself. Let the puck do the work for you, success will follow. He's got decent hands and a decent shot, utilizing your teammates more would go a long way. That's a simplified answer to what his biggest problems are, but if he fixes that, guaranteed he'll have more success.

 

[Anglesmith]

AS, if we’re talking about Bennett generating consistent low scoring chances, does that not describe Gully’s system perfectly? In which case Bennett was doing exactly what was asked.

Based on the fact that he was criticized in end of season meetings and himself agreed that he had to make some changes and get better, I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone with the club was satisfied with what he was doing on the ice.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.

Go back to post #571. The chances being botched by linemates do not fall under your presumption.

 

[Anglesmith]

Go back to post #571. The chances being botched by linemates do not fall under your presumption.

Sure, and first of all, that's a highlight video that cuts out all of his play between those snippets, as I'm sure you acknowledge.

But even for a highlight video, it's not like there are a significant number of those occasions you're referring to. Every chance created is just that- a chance. Sometimes they don't go in. Every single player on the team would have a highlight video for last year where a number of chances are wasted by linemates. Even Troy Brouwer could have such a video created. But watching that Bennett video, there are at least as many "succeeding in spite of himself" moments as there are chances wasted, so I would definitely not call him an unlucky player. And again, the biggest issue with Benny boy is what happens between the clips in that video.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Did we start a "bold predictions" thread for 2018-19 yet? This is mine.

I think by seasons end, Samuel L. Bennett will be our #2 centre.

Why?

Anecdotally, players of his type usually break out around age 22-23. I think he has all the tools and the requisite knowledge, he just can't seem to do more than one thing at a time right now and as a result he looks like complete garbage about 70% of the time.

Typically it takes a couple of years to put that all together - and (as an aside) that's why young players coming in running purely on adrenaline aren't subject to those concerns because they're too excited and hopped up on endorphins to actually think while they're out there - it's purely reactionary.

 

[FerklundCGY]

But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.

What is it in his game that convinces you that he's unlucky and not just creating poor chances which he is not capable of converting? If you're saying he was just unlucky, then you're implying that if he does the same exact thing next season, he'll produce better. Is that what you think?

Based on the fact that Bennett increased his 5v5 individual scoring chances from 113 to 164 and high danger scoring chances from 50 to 75 from the season prior but had the lowest 5v5 shooting percentage (7.04%), oiSH% (5.66%) (the average oiSH% for a 4th liner is 6.4%), and PDO (97.4) of his career, then yes, I do think if he repeats how he performed last season this year, that his point totals will improve drastically as his luck balances out.

Just for comparison, in his rookie season, he had 132 individual scoring chances (19 more than 2016-17), 64 high danger scoring chances (14 more than 2016-17), a 13.21% shooting percentage (5.66% higher than 2016-17), am 8.59% oiSH% (2.37% higher than 2016-17) and a 100.5 PDO (3.8 higher than 2016-17) so while it was clear he had a really bad sophomore season in 2016-17, his numbers showed us why it wasn't really due to him being unlucky. Same thing with his rookie season, as his numbers show us why he was so successful then. With last seasons scoring chance rates being better than his rookie season, there's great reason to be optimistic heading into next season.

Not to mention Bennett controlled possession and scoring chance rates while he was on the ice MUCH better than in his first 2 seasons.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Sure, and first of all, that's a highlight video that cuts out all of his play between those snippets, as I'm sure you acknowledge.

But even for a highlight video, it's not like there are a significant number of those occasions you're referring to. Every chance created is just that- a chance. Sometimes they don't go in. Every single player on the team would have a highlight video for last year where a number of chances are wasted by linemates. Even Troy Brouwer could have such a video created. But watching that Bennett video, there are at least as many "succeeding in spite of himself" moments as there are chances wasted, so I would definitely not call him an unlucky player. And again, the biggest issue with Benny boy is what happens between the clips in that video.

Re: Bolded 1 - not true to nearly the same extent as Bennett. That's a disingenuous claim. In fact, you can watch the same youtuber's videos for pretty much every forward on the team and few of them contain as many quality plays created other than Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Even Jankowski's highlight package is predominantly consisting of Bennett's chance creation. Of course these are just highlight packages, but they support the quantitative evidence (the fact that Bennett's individual expected goals led the entire team at 5 on 5 last year, and his on-ice expected goals trailed only Gaudreau and Monahan who played together) that Bennett was involved in significant creation of events that have a high likelyhood of ending up as goals.

Re: Bolded 2 - I don't expect to change your opinion, but between the qualitative support and the quantitative support, there is reason to think he was indeed, an unlucky player. In more aspects than one (some having less to do with on-ice luck and more to do with luck of the draw in terms of deployment beside the likes of Curtis Lazar and Garnet Hathaway). Of course there's reasons to think that those stats are not the end-all be-all. I'll be the first to tell you I'd expect Ferland or Monahan to have lead this team in actual goals because those two have got the best actual shooting skill on the team. But as pertains to quality of chance, I think the combination of these two aspects, and my own personal observations over the course of the previous 82 games, are sufficient for me to think so.

It seems you are attached to the idea that counting stats fully describe a player's play. I don't expect to sway you away from that idea, especially since no amount of personal anecdote, quantitative on-ice results, and qualitative support is enough to change your mind since you have an opinion of Bennett which is most likely formed by isolated incidents that you're attributing the bulk of his play to. I've seen it here on CFHF that some perceptions get repeated until they are collectively treated as fact, and then when events in the game contradict these "facts", people just ignore them, until the post-game driveby IF the box score "supports" said perception.

If you're attached to your position, so be it. But to me your arguments are machinisms of a popular narrative rather than an actual breakdown of his game or supported by anything resembling evidence. I guess we just see counting stats in a different light - of course they are important but they are a result that requires a certain collection of TEAM inputs, they are not the inputs themselves.

 

[DFF]

I don't expect to change your opinion, but between the qualitative support and the quantitative support, there is reason to think he was indeed, an unlucky player. .

 

[Anglesmith]

Re: Bolded 1 - not true to nearly the same extent as Bennett. That's a disingenuous claim. In fact, you can watch the same youtuber's videos for pretty much every forward on the team and few of them contain as many quality plays created other than Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Even Jankowski's highlight package is predominantly consisting of Bennett's chance creation. Of course these are just highlight packages, but they support the quantitative evidence (the fact that Bennett's individual expected goals led the entire team at 5 on 5 last year, and his on-ice expected goals trailed only Gaudreau and Monahan who played together) that Bennett was involved in significant creation of events that have a high likelyhood of ending up as goals.

Re: Bolded 2 - I don't expect to change your opinion, but between the qualitative support and the quantitative support, there is reason to think he was indeed, an unlucky player. In more aspects than one (some having less to do with on-ice luck and more to do with luck of the draw in terms of deployment beside the likes of Curtis Lazar and Garnet Hathaway). Of course there's reasons to think that those stats are not the end-all be-all. I'll be the first to tell you I'd expect Ferland or Monahan to have lead this team in actual goals because those two have got the best actual shooting skill on the team. But as pertains to quality of chance, I think the combination of these two aspects, and my own personal observations over the course of the previous 82 games, are sufficient for me to think so.

It seems you are attached to the idea that counting stats fully describe a player's play. I don't expect to sway you away from that idea, especially since no amount of personal anecdote, quantitative on-ice results, and qualitative support is enough to change your mind since you have an opinion of Bennett which is most likely formed by isolated incidents that you're attributing the bulk of his play to. I've seen it here on CFHF that some perceptions get repeated until they are collectively treated as fact, and then when events in the game contradict these "facts", people just ignore them, until the post-game driveby IF the box score "supports" said perception.

If you're attached to your position, so be it. But to me your arguments are machinisms of a popular narrative rather than an actual breakdown of his game or supported by anything resembling evidence. I guess we just see counting stats in a different light - of course they are important but they are a result that requires a certain collection of TEAM inputs, they are not the inputs themselves.

To be clear, I think Bennett will be much improved this season. I have to believe that as a Flames fan, because the alternative would be pretty depressing. But I believe it will be because of him making tangible changes to the way he plays the game (and hopefully a system that increases quality of chances team-wide), not because of puck luck.

And no, I really don't think that that highlight reel made him out to be the world-beater you seem to think he was. The fact of the matter is that Bennett is a talented player, and a guy with that talent is going to make great plays throughout the season, as he did. The difference between being able to do something and knowing how to do it repeatably is the difference between a tweener and a superstar, though. The highlight reel was a cut together of his most impressive moments, and if you're doing that, you're going to see impressive moments one way or another. Some of those moments are going to be because Bennett is talented. Some of them are going to be because of one-off mistakes by the defending team. Some of them are going to be shear luck. You can see all of that in the video. I think if you cut together any player's best moments of the season, you're going to get some good-looking stuff. But what a player does in his finest moment is such a small part of the equation. How often he has his finest moments and what he does in the other moments is a huge deal that you can't possibly get a read on from a video like that.

What the video does definitely show is that Bennett is capable of being what you think he is. He has the tools, which is of course why he was drafted 4th overall. It doesn't place him in any particular part of the path to that point, though.

 

[Lunatik]

Samuel JC Bennett

 

[Bounces R Way]

Bennett strikes me as a player that's highly affected by coaching. Most players his age are. I will hold out hope Peters can be the man to demand more out of him and help him achieve it. I still think he has a high ceiling. There's been plenty of games I've watched over his career that leave me thinking Bennett had a great game and deserved more points than he got. When he's on he can be a physical force. People scoff at sample size but to score 4 goals in an NHL game is a clear sign of hockey talent. Trouble is there's been almost as many where I thought he was awful and barely deserved to be in the rink.

He has one more year to prove whether or not he wants to be considered a part of this core. Hopefully having a (at least a little) talented veteran in Frolik or Ryan on his line can spur his confidence. He needs to remember why he was drafted so high in this league and take the puck to the net with confidence and a mind to score. He also needs to stop skating himself into corners and putting himself in bad positions defensively, find his linemates in good positions, and not have such tunnel vision. Plus enough with the bad penalties. Would love to see Bennett-Tkachuk combined for a bit, even if it's only on the 2nd PP.

 

[Volica]

Bill Peters made Valentine Zykov look like a stud. Gulutzan had no ability to get more from his players.
The only players that flourished under Gulutzan, were the known commodities he had inherited from his predecessor.

It's insane when fans call something weeks or months before the coach finally makes the change. Like getting Dougie and Chucky on the PP1... Like, it took half a season to get that done, meanwhile we were screaming for it, for weeks/months.

 

[SKRusty]

Sam is almost useless at finding the soft spots in the oppositions zone. The chances generated are from poor shooting positions or he tries unsuccessfully to go through NHL defensemen. No matter how you look at it or try to excuse it away Sam's hockey sense sucks. If Sam is to realize his potential he needs to be paired with experienced line mates that are able to tell him where to be and how to counter defensive schemes. Right now he is a pinball inside an NHL rink bouncing around everywhere with no purpose or aim.

 

[JPeeper]

Sam should play with Tkachuk and Lindholm. As a unit they are solid defensively, Tkachuk has the mind to get the line going, all three of them are good along the boards with Tkachuk being one of the best in the league. Lindholm is good down low and Sam would have the freedom to move around and not have to rely on shit line-mates.

I really hope Peters puts this line together in pre-season and early in the regular season and let them build some chemistry, I think the line has huge potential.

Only real problem this leads to is moving Backlund down to the 3rd line and Janko to wing which I think is a waste of Janko's talent moving forward and then Backs is underplayed for his salary which will annoy anal hockey fans who only look at the numbers.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Sam should play with Tkachuk and Lindholm. As a unit they are solid defensively, Tkachuk has the mind to get the line going, all three of them are good along the boards with Tkachuk being one of the best in the league. Lindholm is good down low and Sam would have the freedom to move around and not have to rely on **** line-mates.

I really hope Peters puts this line together in pre-season and early in the regular season and let them build some chemistry, I think the line has huge potential.

Only real problem this leads to is moving Backlund down to the 3rd line and Janko to wing which I think is a waste of Janko's talent moving forward and then Backs is underplayed for his salary which will annoy anal hockey fans who only look at the numbers.

I don’t at all agree with the notion that Bennett should be playing up on the 2nd line to start. That said, if Backlund is our 3C then we are in really good shape and it’d be a positive if anything.

 

[Baxterman]

Bill Peters made Valentine Zykov look like a stud.

He did?

 

[Baxterman]

Only real problem this leads to is moving Backlund down to the 3rd line and Janko to wing which I think is a waste of Janko's talent moving forward and then Backs is underplayed for his salary which will annoy anal hockey fans who only look at the numbers.

I think it would work if you treat them more as 2a and 2b giving them roughly the same amount of ice time ES with the Lindholm line getting the soft minutes and Backlund getting the difficult match-ups. Then you have guys (Tkachuk and Backlund) getting more minutes by being key guys on the special teams.

Put Jankowski on the 4th line where he belongs.

 

[Volica]

He did?

According to Canes fans and Calgary media outlets, he essentially took their version of Mangi and made him look like a top 6 NHLer

 

[Baxterman]

According to Canes fans and Calgary media outlets, he essentially took their version of Mangi and made him look like a top 6 NHLer

I don't see how that is possible.

He played 10 game last year in the NHL that seems like a super small sample size, plus the guy had a good AHL season so not sure how it was Peters turning him into anything over him being a talented guy.

 

[Volica]

I don't see how that is possible.

He played 10 game last year in the NHL that seems like a super small sample size, plus the guy had a good AHL season so not sure how it was Peters turning him into anything over him being a talented guy.

Look what Gulutzan did with Mangiapane. Nuff said.

 

[Baxterman]

Look what Gulutzan did with Mangiapane. Nuff said.

There is a lot to criticize GG for but I don’t see the criticism for Mangiapane sucking during his call-up.

 

[Lunatik]

Look what Gulutzan did with Mangiapane. Nuff said.

It's Gulutzan's fault Mangiapane was easily knocked off the puck and unimpressive in almost every way? Good to know