Have the canucks quietly built up a solid prospect pool?

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,014
3,834
Vancouver
Above average to me is more than 1st round pick graduates. We’re 6 drafts in, at the very least 14/15 should be showing something past round 1 in developed draft picks. Hell, above average would dictate to me that he wouldn’t have a full draft class with ZERO from it.
If anything he’s below average in the draft. 2/4 inside the Top7 is not a good look, sure having a 23rd overall make a solid impact is nice, but if you compared to any of the other 9 teams who have been the bottom 10 of the league over the last 4 years. I’d be willing to bet they have similar success rate in draft pick graduates that Vancouver does.

Later round picks traditionally take more time. If Tryamkin returns, and Gaudette and Demko establish themselves as NHL regulars (probable imo) we would have an above average rate of successful late round picks.

Woo, Madden and Hoglander are all promising.
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,457
3,243
Vancouver
Who exactly is making that case?

Instead of viewing things in extremes, or in black and white, I choose to see him as above average in drafting. I don't believe it makes up for his other deficiences, however that doesn't mean I can't give credit where it's due.

The only posters who use the terms guru or wizard are those who seem intent on mischaracterizing other poster's points of view.

Umm, basically anyone who defends Benning? At least, that's my takeaway when I read posts from Benning's defenders.

Most of Benning's critics here on HF will concede he's basically average at drafting. What is your rationale for claiming he's above average?

When Benning was named GM, it was made abundantly clear that he was hired in large part because of his scouting ability -- he would be able to make savvy picks that would facilitate a quick retool of the team. This is a pretty much a matter of public record.

And yet here we are in year 6, with a shallow prospect pool, a cap-maxed team, that might, just maybe, snag a wildcard spot if next to everything goes well for the Canucks.

Even if he is above average in drafting.... he still sucks as a GM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
917
Later round picks traditionally take more time. If Tryamkin returns, and Gaudette and Demko establish themselves as NHL regulars (probable imo) we would have an above average rate of successful late round picks.

Woo, Madden and Hoglander are all promising.
So you’re not gonna bother comparing to the rest of the bottom 10 teams over the same time frame? Also just gonna ignore 2016 as a whole and say “shit happens?” Because zero graduates from that class is not a good look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
But that's just a story you've built up in your own mind and an argument that nobody has made.

If the Canucks marketing department superimposed over an image of Benning the words, "He sees things other people don't see" in a pre-draft poster, what would be your reaction to that? What do think is the desired connection they want to make? How about over a video of Benning, if the Canucks marketing department had from the 6th Sense movie the sound clip of, "He sees things other people don't see" during a pre-draft video? Do you think that the desired connection the Canucks want to make is that Benning has an extraordinary ability to identify talent in the draft... that he can see things that other can't?

The Canucks have built the story that Benning is a scouting guru. This is their narrative that they invented. There are videos, and sound clips, and written words of Linden and others in the organization building Benning up as an extraordinary identifier of talent... and this narrative has been echoed time and again over the years by those who believe the narrative.
 

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,014
3,834
Vancouver
So you’re not gonna bother comparing to the rest of the bottom 10 teams over the same time frame? Also just gonna ignore 2016 as a whole and say “**** happens?” Because zero graduates from that class is not a good look.

So you want me to do your work for you? Um sure. What criteria do you want to use? The 10 worst teams over the past 5 years (there are several ways to do this, I just did aggregate points) are listed, as well as number of 2nd round, or later, picks who have played 100 games or more

Toronto Maple Leafs - 1 (Dermott just barely)
Carolina Hurricanes - 2 (Aho was an amazing pick, and Wallmark - just barely)
Detroit Red Wings - 0
Ottawa Senators - 0
Colorado Avalanche - 0
New Jersey Devils - 1 (Bratt)
Vancouver Canucks - 1 (Forsling)
Edmonton Oilers - 0
Arizona Coyotes - 2 (Fischer & Dvorak)
Buffalo Sabres - 0

So there are two teams with late round picks who have played more than 100 games . We are one of those teams that looks above average to me - imo Tryamkin stayed we would have 2.

Granted, we traded that player in a brutal trade, but the drafting was still ok. And there will be more graduates from several teams over the next few years, including ours. I don't think as many late round picks make the NHL as you think.
 
Last edited:

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
So you want me to do your work for you? Um sure. What criteria do you want to use? The 10 worst teams over the past 5 years (there are several ways to do this, I just did aggregate points) are listed, as well as number of 2nd round, or later, picks who have played 100 games or more

Toronto Maple Leafs - 1 (Dermott just barely)
Carolina Hurricanes - 2 (Aho was an amazing pick, and Wallmark - just barely)
Detroit Red Wings - 0
Ottawa Senators - 0
Colorado Avalanche - 0
New Jersey Devils - 1 (Bratt)
Vancouver Canucks - 1 (Forsling)
Edmonton Oilers - 0
Arizona Coyotes - 2 (Fischer & Dvorak)
Buffalo Sabres - 0

So there are two teams with late round picks who have played more than 100 games . We are one of those teams that looks above average to me - imo Tryamkin stayed we would have 2.

Granted, we traded that player in a brutal trade, but the drafting was still ok. And there will be more graduates from several teams over the next few years, including ours. I don't think as many late round picks make the NHL as you think.

I know it was his question but if with a parameter as low as 100 games only gets 7 players from 10 teams over a 5 year spans that tells you it's not a very good measure. For later rounds you need to give at least 5 years to judge any draft, and so few players after the 1st round make it's really only the top drafting & developing teams that stand out (ex: Tampa) then the rest is a bunch of random noise.

While talking about drafting here what hasn't been talked about is the other end of the coin: development. This would be a much more time consuming list to tally but I think what would show a better measurement of what we're getting at here looking at only the past 5 years is counting the number of draft picks playing on the farm team.

Later round picks are going take longer to develop, so generally the step before making them an NHL player is getting them from their CHL/College/European team and onto your AHL farm club. They have to show they can contribute in the AHL before they can play in the NHL. Just giving this a quick scan I picked at random the 2010 draft and of every player from round 2-7 that played 100 NHL games (a few dozen) only 3 didn't spend at least have a season in the AHL: Jon Merill, Joonas Donskoi, and John Klingberg.

So at this point where you're only looking at the past 5-6 years which doesn't give enough time to properly evaluate drafts looking at what's on the farm team gives a much better measure of a teams drafting ability.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
So you want me to do your work for you? Um sure. What criteria do you want to use? The 10 worst teams over the past 5 years (there are several ways to do this, I just did aggregate points) are listed, as well as number of 2nd round, or later, picks who have played 100 games or more

Toronto Maple Leafs - 1 (Dermott just barely)
Carolina Hurricanes - 2 (Aho was an amazing pick, and Wallmark - just barely)
Detroit Red Wings - 0
Ottawa Senators - 0
Colorado Avalanche - 0
New Jersey Devils - 1 (Bratt)
Vancouver Canucks - 1 (Forsling)
Edmonton Oilers - 0
Arizona Coyotes - 2 (Fischer & Dvorak)
Buffalo Sabres - 0

So there are two teams with late round picks who have played more than 100 games . We are one of those teams that looks above average to me - imo Tryamkin stayed we would have 2.

Granted, we traded that player in a brutal trade, but the drafting was still ok. And there will be more graduates from several teams over the next few years, including ours. I don't think as many late round picks make the NHL as you think.

The thing is, you are not making the point that you think you're making.

The point is that none of this matters. There is no "skill" in drafting. All teams are the same, just as you demonstrated with your post. Literally any system of picking players will yield roughly the same results as any other system. It doesn't matter. Thus, it shouldn't be used in any form of criteria for assessing a general manager. Drafting is unimportant, uninteresting, and irrelevant. All that matters is how many picks you hold and where you hold them. No team or person or system has shown any ability above any reasonable baseline to perform any better than anyone else over any moderate frame of time. It's dowsing. Sometimes you *do* find water, but it means nothing.

Fire all of your amateur scouts. Invest zero dollars and do zero research. Pick players based on some public consensus list or based on stats or just f***ing pick at random based on reasonable pools. Your results in the end will be roughly the same as everyone else: A moderate chance at a player in the 1st round, odds depending on the pick, and then maybe one other player from the rest of the draft if you are lucky.

It doesn't matter. It's boring, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Jim Benning is not a drafting guru because nobody is, because it's not real. Dowsing isn't real, even if you find water sometimes.

Talking about him in relativistic terms, as being "average" or "above average" or "well above average" is meaningless dreck. It's no more possible to be "above average" at drafting than it is to be above average at flipping coins.
 
Last edited:

tyhee

Registered User
Feb 5, 2015
2,535
2,612
... It's no more possible to be "above average" at drafting than it is to be above average at flipping coins.

This is completely off-topic and I don't mean it to argue your point in any way, but merely to raise a curiousity.

When I was in my very early twenties and still curious about most of the ways of the world, I got curious about whether it was actually possible to be able to control a coin flip. I had no use for such an ability but out of curiousity decided to try it out briefly.

I practised taking a nickel in my dominant right hand and looking at which side was up, flipping it upwards with my thumb from about stomach level to a consistent level a little higher than the top of my head, catching it in my right hand and turning it over onto my left. After a few tries doing it as closely as possible to the same I determined that more often than not if I was consistent the coin seemed to end up with the upside being the opposite side up to what it was before it was flipped.

After practising for about 20 minutes I did a test of 40 coins. 27 times in those 40 tries the flip had the intended result (opposite side up to what it was before being flipped.) That result was mildly disappointing.

At this stage I lost interest, didn't do any calculations about signficance, didn't continue to do a larger number of tests nor spend time pondering the results. I hadn't thought about it for decades until now, seeing your comparison.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
This is completely off-topic and I don't mean it to argue your point in any way, but merely to raise a curiousity.

When I was in my very early twenties and still curious about most of the ways of the world, I got curious about whether it was actually possible to be able to control a coin flip. I had no use for such an ability but out of curiousity decided to try it out briefly.

I practised taking a nickel in my dominant right hand and looking at which side was up, flipping it upwards with my thumb from about stomach level to a consistent level a little higher than the top of my head, catching it in my right hand and turning it over onto my left. After a few tries doing it as closely as possible to the same I determined that more often than not if I was consistent the coin seemed to end up with the upside being the opposite side up to what it was before it was flipped.

After practising for about 20 minutes I did a test of 40 coins. 27 times in those 40 tries the flip had the intended result (opposite side up to what it was before being flipped.) That result was mildly disappointing.

At this stage I lost interest, didn't do any calculations about signficance, didn't continue to do a larger number of tests nor spend time pondering the results. I hadn't thought about it for decades until now, seeing your comparison.

Suppose the world contained exactly 2^33 people, around 8.5 billion, and suppose every single person participated in a worldwide coin flipping contest. You are paired up with someone and assigned heads or tails. If the coin chooses you, you move on.

Due to the structure of the tournament, there would be an absolute guarantee that *someone* "wins" 33 times in a row. That's guaranteed. The winner will have won 33 rounds of heads or tails in a row, through sheer dumb luck. Imagine how special he would feel, how chosen. But it's a guarantee that it would happen to someone.

Just an exercise I like to think about when we talking about the perception of ability and how we have a tendency to read too much ability into results.
 

Bojack Horvatman

IAMGROOT
Jun 15, 2016
4,037
7,093
This is completely off-topic and I don't mean it to argue your point in any way, but merely to raise a curiousity.

When I was in my very early twenties and still curious about most of the ways of the world, I got curious about whether it was actually possible to be able to control a coin flip. I had no use for such an ability but out of curiousity decided to try it out briefly.

I practised taking a nickel in my dominant right hand and looking at which side was up, flipping it upwards with my thumb from about stomach level to a consistent level a little higher than the top of my head, catching it in my right hand and turning it over onto my left. After a few tries doing it as closely as possible to the same I determined that more often than not if I was consistent the coin seemed to end up with the upside being the opposite side up to what it was before it was flipped.

After practising for about 20 minutes I did a test of 40 coins. 27 times in those 40 tries the flip had the intended result (opposite side up to what it was before being flipped.) That result was mildly disappointing.

At this stage I lost interest, didn't do any calculations about signficance, didn't continue to do a larger number of tests nor spend time pondering the results. I hadn't thought about it for decades until now, seeing your comparison.

I'm wondering if it is possible if you know the rotational properties of the coin and, can practice flipping the coin with right amount of force to get the calculated outcome.
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,457
3,243
Vancouver
This is completely off-topic and I don't mean it to argue your point in any way, but merely to raise a curiousity.

When I was in my very early twenties and still curious about most of the ways of the world, I got curious about whether it was actually possible to be able to control a coin flip. I had no use for such an ability but out of curiousity decided to try it out briefly.

I practised taking a nickel in my dominant right hand and looking at which side was up, flipping it upwards with my thumb from about stomach level to a consistent level a little higher than the top of my head, catching it in my right hand and turning it over onto my left. After a few tries doing it as closely as possible to the same I determined that more often than not if I was consistent the coin seemed to end up with the upside being the opposite side up to what it was before it was flipped.

After practising for about 20 minutes I did a test of 40 coins. 27 times in those 40 tries the flip had the intended result (opposite side up to what it was before being flipped.) That result was mildly disappointing.

At this stage I lost interest, didn't do any calculations about signficance, didn't continue to do a larger number of tests nor spend time pondering the results. I hadn't thought about it for decades until now, seeing your comparison.


Is physically flipping a coin actually a random event?

There will always be a gap between theoretical and experimental probabilies.

Regardless, Benning is not a draft genius.
 

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
917
The thing is, you are not making the point that you think you're making.

The point is that none of this matters. There is no "skill" in drafting. All teams are the same, just as you demonstrated with your post. Literally any system of picking players will yield roughly the same results as any other system. It doesn't matter. Thus, it shouldn't be used in any form of criteria for assessing a general manager. Drafting is unimportant, uninteresting, and irrelevant. All that matters is how many picks you hold and where you hold them. No team or person or system has shown any ability above any reasonable baseline to perform any better than anyone else over any moderate frame of time. It's dowsing. Sometimes you *do* find water, but it means nothing.

Fire all of your amateur scouts. Invest zero dollars and do zero research. Pick players based on some public consensus list or based on stats or just ****ing pick at random based on reasonable pools. Your results in the end will be roughly the same as everyone else: A moderate chance at a player in the 1st round, odds depending on the pick, and then maybe one other player from the rest of the draft if you are lucky.

It doesn't matter. It's boring, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Jim Benning is not a drafting guru because nobody is, because it's not real. Dowsing isn't real, even if you find water sometimes.

Talking about him in relativistic terms, as being "average" or "above average" or "well above average" is meaningless dreck. It's no more possible to be "above average" at drafting than it is to be above average at flipping coins.
TBH, I do feel there is a pretty close science to the first round of the draft, the most heavily scouted players of the draft. The odds of a draft pick turning into an NHL player are similar in that it does become a 50/50 coin flip around 25th overall. After that it is completely luck based.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
TBH, I do feel there is a pretty close science to the first round of the draft, the most heavily scouted players of the draft. The odds of a draft pick turning into an NHL player are similar in that it does become a 50/50 coin flip around 25th overall. After that it is completely luck based.

The point isn't that it's "random" in the sense that a 196th overall has the same odds as the 1 overall. It's random in the sense that which teams do better than other teams has absolutely nothing to do with any skill they have over and above the other teams (or even consensus of fanbase, polls, potato, etc.)

Any reasonable system at the potato-level and beyond does about as well as any other system, and who does well in any particular draft is essentially random. That's what i mean.

Except that, of course, the more picks you have, the better your odds, obviously, and also the higher the picks.

Unfortunately my computer is all packed up as I'm moving on Saturday, or I'd give you some numbers that are more illustrative of my point.
 
Last edited:

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
917
The point isn't that it's "random" in the sense that a 196th overall has the same odds as the 1 overall. It's random in the sense that which teams do better than other teams has absolutely nothing to do with any skill they have over and above the other teams (or even consensus of fanbase, polls, potato, etc.)

Any reasonable system at the potato-level and beyond does about as well as any other system, and who does well in any particular draft is essentially random. That's what i mean.

Except that, of course, the more picks you have, the better your odds, obviously, and also the higher the picks.

Unfortunately my computer is all packed up as I'm moving on Saturday, or I'd give you some numbers that are more illustrative of my point.
Trust me, I’ve read about the odds have draft picks turning out into everyday players. My argument was strictly that within the first 25 picks or so, they science is there to base most of your predictions off for potential returns on your pick.
But yes, I’ve always agreed that taking 10-12 shots at the draft each year is a better plan than the 5-6 we have been under Dim. Just using the allotted 7 yearly is bare minimum imho.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Trust me, I’ve read about the odds have draft picks turning out into everyday players. My argument was strictly that within the first 25 picks or so, they science is there to base most of your predictions off for potential returns on your pick.
But yes, I’ve always agreed that taking 10-12 shots at the draft each year is a better plan than the 5-6 we have been under Dim. Just using the allotted 7 yearly is bare minimum imho.

What is the science? I don't follow your point.
 

Peter10

Registered User
Dec 7, 2003
4,193
5,042
Germany
What is the science? I don't follow your point.

I would think at the top end level it can make a difference to know the players personality. If you have two guys who are similar talented the player who is more driven and has a better work rate is more likely to succeed. However, that would require to correctly assess these things which seems rather difficult.

Overall I think you could make a bit of a difference if you know and watched the player along with such a system over just taking that system by itself. That for top end prospects only though because the further down you get its getting impossible to judge. Also I dont think that little difference could be quantified because you would need a sample size that you will never get in reality.
 

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
917
I would think at the top end level it can make a difference to know the players personality. If you have two guys who are similar talented the player who is more driven and has a better work rate is more likely to succeed. However, that would require to correctly assess these things which seems rather difficult.

Overall I think you could make a bit of a difference if you know and watched the player along with such a system over just taking that system by itself. That for top end prospects only though because the further down you get its getting impossible to judge. Also I dont think that little difference could be quantified because you would need a sample size that you will never get in reality.
TBH, I was speaking more to the pure mathematics and statistical odds of the draft pick playing 100 games.
But there is a draft process that each team employs, not all are the same and I think it is safe to say that tracking the output of each teams draft pick success rate can vary to a huge degree, but some have been measurably more successful than others.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
How many players are in the NHL... roughly 700? I think it would be relatively easy to develop a consensus of the top 15 players out of the about 700 players available to choose from.

... Same with our ranking of top Canucks prospects here (top 15 is pretty clear)...

and I think amateur drafting is similar. I think it would be relatively easy to develop a consensus of the top 15 players to draft out of the hundreds of players available to choose from. The order can be argued, or methods used to try and nail down a list from best to worst... but when talking about the top cream of the crop, who to choose amongst is a pretty clear group.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
The point isn't that it's "random" in the sense that a 196th overall has the same odds as the 1 overall. It's random in the sense that which teams do better than other teams has absolutely nothing to do with any skill they have over and above the other teams (or even consensus of fanbase, polls, potato, etc.)

Any reasonable system at the potato-level and beyond does about as well as any other system, and who does well in any particular draft is essentially random. That's what i mean.

Except that, of course, the more picks you have, the better your odds, obviously, and also the higher the picks.

Unfortunately my computer is all packed up as I'm moving on Saturday, or I'd give you some numbers that are more illustrative of my point.

But if you don’t do your own work / checking over the data that you got from someone else, you are relying on some other people’s work. Central scouting is obviously the big one. Other people’s draft lists are based on a combination of factors that would be unreasonable to rely on.

If I was a billionaire, I could easily start a draft guide publication, hire editors, publishers, graphic designers, marketing & pr, hire a ton of former NHL scouts to lend credibility and internally I get to decide where players are ranked and someone using your system or ideas would be relying on my work as part of the data they use or for consensus purposes.

On another note, I would be interested in seeing David Poile’s GM record for drafting Dmen compared to others.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
The thing is, you are not making the point that you think you're making.

The point is that none of this matters. There is no "skill" in drafting. All teams are the same, just as you demonstrated with your post. Literally any system of picking players will yield roughly the same results as any other system. It doesn't matter. Thus, it shouldn't be used in any form of criteria for assessing a general manager. Drafting is unimportant, uninteresting, and irrelevant. All that matters is how many picks you hold and where you hold them. No team or person or system has shown any ability above any reasonable baseline to perform any better than anyone else over any moderate frame of time. It's dowsing. Sometimes you *do* find water, but it means nothing.

Fire all of your amateur scouts. Invest zero dollars and do zero research. Pick players based on some public consensus list or based on stats or just ****ing pick at random based on reasonable pools. Your results in the end will be roughly the same as everyone else: A moderate chance at a player in the 1st round, odds depending on the pick, and then maybe one other player from the rest of the draft if you are lucky.

It doesn't matter. It's boring, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Jim Benning is not a drafting guru because nobody is, because it's not real. Dowsing isn't real, even if you find water sometimes.

Talking about him in relativistic terms, as being "average" or "above average" or "well above average" is meaningless dreck. It's no more possible to be "above average" at drafting than it is to be above average at flipping coins.

I agree with your point in a general sense in that it's mostly luck and draft position but disagree that it's a pure coin flip. Like, if we can see that Connor McDavid is clearly better than Mackenze Stewart at age 18, then there is a degree of predictability that can be exploited.

The notion of 'great drafting teams' vs. 'horrible drafting teams' and 'great drafting GMs' is rubbish. But I refuse to believe that what Tampa is doing right now isn't statistically significantly different from what Ron Delorme did running our drafts here. IMO good drafting can pull you maybe 10% above the mean ... but most of that isn't 'seeing things other people don't see', it's just being smart enough to not fall into stupid traps and make obvious mistakes. Like, just being smart enough to not draft low-producting Mackenze Stewarts and Kyle Pettits immediately puts you slightly ahead of the curve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
I agree with your point in a general sense in that it's mostly luck and draft position but disagree that it's a pure coin flip. Like, if we can see that Connor McDavid is clearly better than Mackenze Stewart at age 18, then there is a degree of predictability that can be exploited.

The notion of 'great drafting teams' vs. 'horrible drafting teams' and 'great drafting GMs' is rubbish. But I refuse to believe that what Tampa is doing right now isn't statistically significantly different from what Ron Delorme did running our drafts here. IMO good drafting can pull you maybe 10% above the mean ... but most of that isn't 'seeing things other people don't see', it's just being smart enough to not fall into stupid traps and make obvious mistakes. Like, just being smart enough to not draft low-producting Mackenze Stewarts and Kyle Pettits immediately puts you slightly ahead of the curve.
I agree with this. I have nothing to back it up but gut feeling but I can't help but believe just from recent experience that a second round pick in the hands of Kevin Cheveldayoff has more value than the same pick in the hands of Jim Benning. I actually pay more attention to players selected in the second and third round by the Jets and the Lightning post draft because of who drafted them.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->