Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[LeftCoast]

You missed the intent of the post. He clearly said he didn't include drafts that were not comparable to this one, because going in we knew there was no franchise level D.

It would be like trying to compare Crosby to RNH because they were both #1 picks, when going in no one thought RNH would be as good as Crosby.

Now if you disagree with his theory, thats fine, I have no problem with that. But attack the theory, and not other drafts that were not included.

If you feel those other drafts should be included state why. If he is right or wrong, from what he posted its a reasonable conclusion.

I disagree with it a bit and think Joulevi will be a good #2, but that is not the point.

The point was a best silly and at worst dishonest. If you use an arbitrary filter (X year was a hyped D draft) to eliminate data that don't match your premise of course that data are going to support you.

 

[racerjoe]

The point was a best silly and at worst dishonest. If you use an arbitrary filter (X year was a hyped D draft) to eliminate data that don't match your premise of course that data are going to support you.

So then it would be ok to compare the Crosby draft to the RNH draft and conclude that RNH should be equal to Crosby?

Cause that is the info that is being taken out of his examples.

Before the draft everyone said there is no #1 D. So to take out drafts that have one seems fair.

 

[Fat Tony]

Because saying there is no number 1 D is not the same as there being no number 1 D.

So either Benning is not being honest or his own assessment is not worth much?

 

[DL44]

The 5th drafted Forward vs Highest Dman outside the top 2 picks...

2005, Skille - J.Johnson
2006, Brassad - Wishart
2007, Voracek - Hickey
2008, Bailey - Bogosian
2009, Glennie - OLE
2010, Connelly - Gudbransen
2011, Zibanejad - Larsen
2012, Faska - Reinhart
2013, Monahan - Jones
2014, Virtanen - Fleury
2015, Zacha - Hanifin

 

[LeftCoast]

So then it would be ok to compare the Crosby draft to the RNH draft and conclude that RNH should be equal to Crosby?

Cause that is the info that is being taken out of his examples.

Before the draft everyone said there is no #1 D. So to take out drafts that have one seems fair.

If you are trying to use an evidence (data) based analysis, you use all of the data. An evidence based analysis of RNH as a 1OA pick would put him on a continuum somewhere between Sydney Crosby or Connor McDavid and Patrik Stefan. But you don't eliminate all of the data from years that don't support your preconceived theory and then pat yourself on the back because you think you've proven something. That's how the whole Anti-Vax movement started.

 

[racerjoe]

If you are trying to use an evidence (data) based analysis, you use all of the data. An evidence based analysis of RNH as a 1OA pick would put him on a continuum somewhere between Sydney Crosby or Connor McDavid and Patrik Stefan. But you don't eliminate all of the data from years that don't support your preconceived theory and then pat yourself on the back because you think you've proven something. That's how the whole Anti-Vax movement started.

I don't think that is true at all. At least not in what we are trying to look at. Again I don't even agree completely with what he is trying to say, however he is trying to compare like drafts. Drafts that didn't have perceived high end defensive prospects.

It would be like looking at a pitchers pitches and trying to analyze fast balls, but including curveballs to get all of the data. He is trying to compare like drafts.

 

[LeftCoast]

I don't think that is true at all. At least not in what we are trying to look at. Again I don't even agree completely with what he is trying to say, however he is trying to compare like drafts. Drafts that didn't have perceived high end defensive prospects.

It would be like looking at a pitchers pitches and trying to analyze fast balls, but including curveballs to get all of the data. He is trying to compare like drafts.

What you want in the end is the data to be 'normal' and broadly representative of the universe of data you are comparing the player to. If you are interested in analyzing fastballs, you would not include curveballs because curveballs are not fastballs. Additionally, there are very objective criteria to distinguish between a curveball and a fastball - a person with rudimentary knowledge of baseball can easily tell the difference.

But if you are analyzing defenseman - how can you say a defenseman drafted in one year is any different than one drafted in a different year? Further, the criteria - exclude D-men from draft years which were 'hyped' as deep defensive drafts lacks any kind of objective criteria to distinguish between a 'hyped' Defensive draft and a 'not hyped' one, not to mention a logical reason to exclude them. Rather, it's a flawed and arbitrary filter designed to eliminate data that don't fit the hypothesis.

 

[fancouver]

Benning has certainly changed the identity of the dcore, if not the team.

Compared to:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Rome/Ballard - Salo

-----

Edler - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Sbisa - Tryamkin

It's certainly a lot more physical, punishing and intimidating. Seeing how the Pacific is such a physical division, it sets us up nicely moving forward.

Edler and Sbisa will likely be traded or bought out in a few years:

Juolevi - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Pedan - Tryamkin

Half of the D core hits to hurt.

 

[racerjoe]

What you want in the end is the data to be 'normal' and broadly representative of the universe of data you are comparing the player to. If you are interested in analyzing fastballs, you would not include curveballs because curveballs are not fastballs. Additionally, there are very objective criteria to distinguish between a curveball and a fastball - a person with rudimentary knowledge of baseball can easily tell the difference.

But if you are analyzing defenseman - how can you say a defenseman drafted in one year is any different than one drafted in a different year? Further, the criteria - exclude D-men from draft years which were 'hyped' as deep defensive drafts lacks any kind of objective criteria to distinguish between a 'hyped' Defensive draft and a 'not hyped' one, not to mention a logical reason to exclude them. Rather, it's a flawed and arbitrary filter designed to eliminate data that don't fit the hypothesis.

In general you are correct, but that is not what the OP was trying to compare. They were trying to compare like drafts. That was the criteria. It was a specific type of draft. Now maybe there is a better way sure. But they wanted to narrow down the drafts to ones that going in were thought of in the same way. Thats the curveball. We can see this by simply going back and seeing what draft pundits said.

This was laid out by the OP. I don't completely agree with it, but it seems straight forward to me.

 

[kanucks25]

Benning has certainly changed the identity of the dcore, if not the team.

Compared to:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Rome/Ballard - Salo

-----

Edler - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Sbisa - Tryamkin

Benning hasn't changed ****.

All our good D-men now are products of the previous regimes.

He doesn't get credit for Tanev or Hutton. He gets credit for Sbisa and Bartkowski. Tryamkin is still TBD. Gudbranson is also TBD and it'll be hard for him to ever live up to the value we gave up for him.

Not to mention he's now lost Garrison and Hamhuis (two guys that were top-4 D-men when he took over and are still top-4 D-men right now) for nothing.

This thread is really confusing because it's more like he butchered the defense.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Benning has certainly changed the identity of the dcore, if not the team.

Compared to:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Rome/Ballard - Salo

-----

- Gudbranson
Sbisa - Tryamkin

Fixed that for you.

 

[I am toxic]

Benning hasn't changed ****.

All our good D-men now are products of the previous regimes.

He doesn't get credit for Tanev or Hutton. He gets credit for Sbisa and Bartkowski. Tryamkin is still TBD. Gudbranson is also TBD and it'll be hard for him to ever live up to the value we gave up for him.

Not to mention he's now lost Garrison and Hamhuis (two guys that were top-4 D-men when he took over and are still top-4 D-men right now) for nothing.

This thread is really confusing because it's more like he butchered the defense.

This. I just assumed the thread title was sarcasm.

 

[valkynax]

Benning hasn't changed ****.

All our good D-men now are products of the previous regimes.

He doesn't get credit for Tanev or Hutton. He gets credit for Sbisa and Bartkowski. Tryamkin is still TBD. Gudbranson is also TBD and it'll be hard for him to ever live up to the value we gave up for him.

Not to mention he's now lost Garrison and Hamhuis (two guys that were top-4 D-men when he took over and are still top-4 D-men right now) for nothing.

This thread is really confusing because it's more like he butchered the defense.

Oh yeah almost forgot about Garrison.

Sigh, I loved watching him play back then, shoots the puck like a mother****er

 

[Trelane]

Fixed that for you.

Your fixing is subjective. Be fair now and work both sides of the equation. Bieksa, Edler and Salo were products of regimes prior to Gillis. Ehrhoff was his one big score after two years. Hammer was too, but, truthfully, any Nuck GM in his place makes that signing since he wanted to come home (at discount) and told the club acquiring his rights just prior to go climb a tree.

As with so many things it's too early to be doing this analysis. The top 4 penciled in for next year are collectively among the league's youngest so there is potential for growth and now he's added a blue chip prospect. It is at least conceivable that "the D is pretty much rebuilt," but who really knows. That could not have been said before. Keeping Hammer and Garrison would just be putting off the inevitable.

 

[RandV]

Your fixing is subjective. Be fair now and work both sides of the equation. Bieksa, Edler and Salo were products of regimes prior to Gillis. Ehrhoff was his one big score after two years. Hammer was too, but, truthfully, any Nuck GM in his place makes that signing since he wanted to come home (at discount) and told the club acquiring his rights just prior to go climb a tree.

As with so many things it's too early to be doing this analysis. The top 4 penciled in for next year are collectively among the league's youngest so there is potential for growth and now he's added a blue chip prospect. It is at least conceivable that "the D is pretty much rebuilt," but who really knows. That could not have been said before. Keeping Hammer and Garrison would just be putting off the inevitable.

Regardless of who acquired who from the past two regimes what Gillis deserves the most credit for is the balanced cap structure he slotted them all into. Something Nonis was never that adept at, and Benning completely broke before his first year was even up.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't give Benning credit for that much of it, but I do think that these five guys are a solid group of D to build from

Tanev
Juolevi
Hutton
Tryamkin
Gudbranson

I think both 1c and 1d are of great importance. I really don't have a problem of getting either one first, the question is will Juo develop into a 1d?

We need platinum level 1c, 1d and 1g. Assuming Demko and Juo can fill in the 1g 1d role, we'll acquire our 1c later on. The team isn't gonna compete before Henrik falls off the map, so we still got time, there is no huge hurry.

I disagree with the commonly accepted narrative that they're equal priority pieces and that you necessarily need a top 15 type 1D and 1G to compete and/or win a cup. It's a luxury and often something that can put you over the top, but I would be perfectly content with just a well rounded and solid D core 1 through 6.

A 1C is an absolute prerequisite to get ANYWHERE in this league-- you're unlikely to even make the playoffs without one, IMO.

That said, this idea I'm hearing of Ohlund not being a #1 guy is absolutely ludicrous. There were not 15 defenseman better than him when he was playing well.

 

[racerjoe]

Your fixing is subjective. Be fair now and work both sides of the equation. Bieksa, Edler and Salo were products of regimes prior to Gillis. Ehrhoff was his one big score after two years. Hammer was too, but, truthfully, any Nuck GM in his place makes that signing since he wanted to come home (at discount) and told the club acquiring his rights just prior to go climb a tree.

As with so many things it's too early to be doing this analysis. The top 4 penciled in for next year are collectively among the league's youngest so there is potential for growth and now he's added a blue chip prospect. It is at least conceivable that "the D is pretty much rebuilt," but who really knows. That could not have been said before. Keeping Hammer and Garrison would just be putting off the inevitable.

So Gillis only gets credit for Hamhuis Ehrhoff, Tanev and Garrison. All quality top four guys. Fair enough... But that is still pretty damn good.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Your fixing is subjective. Be fair now and work both sides of the equation. Bieksa, Edler and Salo were products of regimes prior to Gillis. Ehrhoff was his one big score after two years. Hammer was too, but, truthfully, any Nuck GM in his place makes that signing since he wanted to come home (at discount) and told the club acquiring his rights just prior to go climb a tree.

As with so many things it's too early to be doing this analysis. The top 4 penciled in for next year are collectively among the league's youngest so there is potential for growth and now he's added a blue chip prospect.

In addition to Hamhuis and Garrison, the previous regime also brought in Hutton and Tanev, two nobodies without whom our future would surely be even bleaker. Benning added a "blue chipper" only after he drove the team into the gutter and got a 5th overall pick. I think finding these players in the 4th round and as undrafted free agents is more impressive, but YMMV.

 

[LeftCoast]

I wouldn't say our D is rebuilt, but we certainly have a better young core than we have had in recent years. Depending on if Hamhuis re-signs or not, the senior citizens are Hammer (33), Edler (30), Tanev (26) and Sbisa (26) with Gudbranson, Hutton and Tryamkin all projected to be starters under 25. Larson (26) will make the roster, but may not be an everyday player and Stecher (22), Biega (28), Pedan (22), Subban (21) and Sautner (22) are available for call up.

Last year our D was a disaster, mostly of the teams own making.

• Coming into the season we had a solid top 3 (Edler, Tanev, Hammer) , but a big question mark at #4. In the summer they likely projected Sbisa or Bartkowski to fill the #4 slot.
  
• There is no organizational memory of past experience beyond the current staff. In the Western Conference you HAVE to carry 8 NHL ready defensemen. The decision to keep both Virtanen and McCann with the team meant they could only carry 7.
  
• They bungled the opening day roster moves. It was not necessary to expose Corrado to waivers. They could have sent Horvat or Hutton down (on paper) for 1 day and then put Higgins on IR and recalled Horvat / Hutton minutes after the start of the season. Corrado was out played in training camp and pre-season by Hutton, but they had invested way too much in him to expose him to waivers.
  
• In the summer they extended Weber with a substantial raise after a season where he had shown that he could be a spark on the PP while not being a liability defensively. Then they signed Bartkowski and once the season started, parked Weber on the bench for weeks. When they finally were forced to insert Weber into the line up, he got no PP time and had no defensive support to cover up his defensive weaknesses. He also seemed to have regressed, or lost confidence from sitting, so some of this is on him. But this was very poor management. Weber has never been strong defensively, but he was better than Bartkowski.
  
• Their summer UFA acquisition of Matt Bartkowski, other than his mom's "my baby scored a goal" moment was a total failure. Intended as a mid-career veteran to add depth and use his skating ability to quickly move the puck, he lacked any offense to compensate for his many defensive gaffs and sporadic physicality. He was an eye test player, who looked beautiful with the puck on his stick, but in his case, the numbers ARE important.
  
• Hutton was the one big positive. He played well beyond expectations and by mid year was so comfortable on the back end that most people forgot he was a rookie. But the team managed to turn Hutton into a bit of a negative anyways. They lost Corrado to waivers because they didn't expect Hutton to make the team and couldn't figure out the roster flexibility to do so. Then near the end of the year, Hutton's performance tailed off a bit because he was over played in high intensity situations and probably fatigued as coming for college he had not played more than 40 games in a season since Junior B.
  
• Then when injuries took Edler, Hamhuis and Tanev out for 30, 24 and 13 games, we had no quality depth to go to. Bartkowski was useless, Weber regressed and Sbisa is not reliable enough to take on big minutes. So we had a rookie Hutton playing virtually all of the big important minutes.

So where are we right now?

It really depends on Hamhuis. If we re-sign Hammer, we are in a better position because with Gudbranson we have another top 4 defender who can play big minutes. Hutton now has full year of NHL experience and with some veteran support defensively could develop more of his offensive game at the NHL level. Sbisa is what he is. Larson replaced Bartkowski, but he is still an unknown, and Tryamkin will play most nights.

However if we don't re-sign Hamhuis, we are probably in worse condition for this season and should expect to struggle defensively as our young defense goes through growing pains.

 

[VanJack]

With the sky-prices being paid for d-men, I need to think about Pedan and Sbisa in a different light.....we'd lose Pedan on waivers for sure now, and Sbisa might actually be tradeable after all!...just makes you realize how ridiculous it was that they couldn't get a deal done for Hamhuis at the deadline.

 

[Ainec]

Sbisa is still untradeable unless we take an equally bad player back

 

[Rex Banner]

I think Juolevi - Tanev has the potential to be the best shutdown pairing in the league. Both guys think the game well and are known to be tidy and efficient in the defensive end. We'll need it with the offensive talent on the other teams around the league.

I see the other 4 as Hutton, Gudbrandson, Tryamkin, and Stetcher. Good mix of size and physicality, along with mobility and creativity.

Hoping somewhere between now and when Juolevi makes the team, Edler gets moved for something good.

 

[bobbyb2009]

Sbisa is still untradeable unless we take an equally bad player back

I would take a different bad player/contract back if it meant Sbisa leaving and Hamuis signing a one year (let's avoid the expansion draft) deal to play on a second or third pair!!!!

 

[ginner classic]

So Gillis only gets credit for Hamhuis Ehrhoff, Tanev and Garrison. All quality top four guys. Fair enough... But that is still pretty damn good.

You forgot Hutton

 

[Pavel96]

Benning has certainly changed the identity of the dcore, if not the team.

Compared to:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Ehrhoff
Rome/Ballard - Salo

-----

Edler - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Sbisa - Tryamkin

It's certainly a lot more physical, punishing and intimidating. Seeing how the Pacific is such a physical division, it sets us up nicely moving forward.

Edler and Sbisa will likely be traded or bought out in a few years:

Juolevi - Tanev
Hutton - Gudbranson
Pedan - Tryamkin

Half of the D core hits to hurt.

I just have a feeling Stecher or Breisbos or someone will end up better than Pedan. Likely Subban will but he'll be traded.