Management Thread | Inconceivable Edition

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm curious to those who come off as supporters of Benning (@Pastor Of Muppetz etc.), what would it take for you to start to believe Benning is the wrong guy for the job and needs to get fired? If one playoff appearance (in extremely unique circumstances) in seven years is enough, then are you happy with that going forward (in the next seven years, only one playoff berth)? I'm curious what you guys believe is the appropriate threshold for Benning getting fired.

I never got a response to this.

I actually was posting in good faith here -- I'm legitimately curious what it would take for some posters to advocate for Benning getting fired. How much rope does he get?

 

[Fatass]

I never got a response to this.

I actually was posting in good faith here -- I'm legitimately curious what it would take for some posters to advocate for Benning getting fired. How much rope does he get?

I came here from another fan forum, where the Benning regime was seen as creating a “land of milk and honey”. It took me about 1/2 a year to finally see the truth. Had to get those blinders off. The knowledge on this board, and posters’ acceptance and presentation of reality is so much better than my former board, where the mods expel those who don’t drink the green, blue, and white Kool Aide.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I can't believe I didn't put this together before, but the percentage of finding a hit vs draft position (Data and graph done by @Melvin) is that the math is the same as radioactive decay. Only the half-life isn't constant.

To approximately calculate the percentage of a pick getting a hit:

For first round: %=95e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After first round: %=40e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

You can also find how much the percentage changes from pick to pick by:

First Round: d%/dpick=-4.93e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After First Round: d%/dpick=-0.396e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

Side note: Pick is not a good variable to use when doing calculus or you use dPic, and using the variable P isn't any better.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I can't believe I didn't put this together before, but the percentage of finding a hit vs draft position (Data and graph done by @Melvin) is that the math is the same as radioactive decay. Only the half-life isn't constant.

To approximately calculate the percentage of a pick getting a hit:

For first round: %=95e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After first round: %=40e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

You can also find how much the percentage changes from pick to pick by:

First Round: d%/dpick=-4.93e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After First Round: d%/dpick=-0.396e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

Side note: Pick is not a good variable to use when doing calculus or you use dPic, and using the variable P isn't any better.

There's a huge drop off around the early-mid 20s in the 1st round. Which makes it all the more amusing when people compare Benning's 1st round picks to Gillis' as if they are in the same ballpark. (not trying to excuse Gillis' poor record of drafting, just that the comparison is absurd).

 

[HedonisticAltruism]

I can't believe I didn't put this together before, but the percentage of finding a hit vs draft position (Data and graph done by @Melvin) is that the math is the same as radioactive decay. Only the half-life isn't constant.

To approximately calculate the percentage of a pick getting a hit:

For first round: %=95e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After first round: %=40e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

You can also find how much the percentage changes from pick to pick by:

First Round: d%/dpick=-4.93e^(-0.693(pick)/25)

After First Round: d%/dpick=-0.396e^(-0.693(pick-31)/70)

Side note: Pick is not a good variable to use when doing calculus or you use dPic, and using the variable P isn't any better.

This is going to sound so arrogant and that's not intended but I suppose it shouldn't be surprising as many 'stochastic' processes when ranked behave in a power-law fashion. It should provide a better metric, though, to compare empirically how a GM's drafting record actually does stack up compared to expectations (assuming the fit is an accurate prediction but I think certainly within noise/error).

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

There's a huge drop off around the early-mid 20s in the 1st round. Which makes it all the more amusing when people compare Benning's 1st round picks to Gillis' as if they are in the same ballpark. (not trying to excuse Gillis' poor record of drafting, just that the comparison is absurd).

Yeah exactly. It's like giving two people the same mass of carbon but one is new and one is 5000 years old, and judging them on who's carbon is decaying more, instead of judging them how their carbon is decaying compared to the natural decaying of the carbon based on its age.

 

[bandwagonesque]

There's a huge drop off around the early-mid 20s in the 1st round. Which makes it all the more amusing when people compare Benning's 1st round picks to Gillis' as if they are in the same ballpark. (not trying to excuse Gillis' poor record of drafting, just that the comparison is absurd).

Where have you seen anyone make this direct comparison? People do praise Benning’s first round picks and criticize Gillis’ but I don’t think anyone compares the quality of the players the two GMs drafted in the first round as though the difference in pick order isn’t relevant. I could be wrong, but in any case I very much doubt anyone outside of a couple of hardliners would make the comparison you’re suggesting is common.

 

[wreckless]

huh?

that's exactly what's been done.

if not, what on earth else could they possibly use to consider Benning in the same solar system as Gillis?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Where have you seen anyone make this direct comparison? People do praise Benning’s first round picks and criticize Gillis’ but I don’t think anyone compares the quality of the players the two GMs drafted in the first round as though the difference in pick order isn’t relevant. I could be wrong, but in any case I very much doubt anyone outside of a couple of hardliners would make the comparison you’re suggesting is common.

People will bring up the lists to shit on Gillis that include Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, etc. while praising Pettersson, Hughes, etc. 3 StRaIgHt CaLdEr FiNaLiStS.
You've been on here since 2014 and you're disputing this?

 

[Catamarca Livin]

People will bring up the lists to shit on Gillis that include Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, etc. while praising Pettersson, Hughes, etc. 3 StRaIgHt CaLdEr FiNaLiStS.
You've been on here since 2014 and you're disputing this?

The thing is you do not need to use top 10 picks to make that point. Boeser and McCann were picked in the 20's as were Schroeder, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk. In Gillis 5 years after 1st round you have Hutton as regular Nhl player. Benning in 6 drafts has Demko, Gaudette, Hoglander right now with many potential like Forsling, Tryamkin, Rathbone etc. So it was not just draft position. In 5 drafts Horvat and Hutton are the two remaining nhl players. By any standard this is bad. Benning drafting is still TBD but Gillis history is set and it is bad. Great team builder bad drafter

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The thing is you do not need to use top 10 picks to make that point. Boeser and McCann were picked in the 20's as were Schroeder, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk. In Gillis 5 years after 1st round you have Hutton as regular Nhl player. Benning in 6 drafts has Demko, Gaudette, Hoglander right now with many potential like Forsling, Tryamkin, Rathbone etc. So it was not just draft position. In 5 drafts Horvat and Hutton are the two remaining nhl players. By any standard this is bad. Benning drafting is still TBD but Gillis history is set and it is bad. Great team builder bad drafter

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with any of this.

 

[Melvin]

Yeah exactly. It's like giving two people the same mass of carbon but one is new and one is 5000 years old, and judging them on who's carbon is decaying more, instead of judging them how their carbon is decaying compared to the natural decaying of the carbon based on its age.

Man i hate when people do that.

 

[Melvin]

This is going to sound so arrogant and that's not intended but I suppose it shouldn't be surprising as many 'stochastic' processes when ranked behave in a power-law fashion. It should provide a better metric, though, to compare empirically how a GM's drafting record actually does stack up compared to expectations (assuming the fit is an accurate prediction but I think certainly within noise/error).

As I said in my original post, I don't think you will ever have enough drafts under a given GM to be able to read anything into it. Even a GM who has been around as long as Benning, I mean, you're still talking N=7. We would need like 100 drafts for it to be a meaningful sample size IMO. I mean I do it for fun, but it's for entertainment purposes only. I don't seriously think we can evaluate a GM's drafting "ability" this way.

I actually think the potato is a better method, because it makes picks based on the players that are actually available, rather than just the pick position (pick position will vary in quality year-over-year e.g. compare 2003 to 2012.)

 

[HedonisticAltruism]

As I said in my original post, I don't think you will ever have enough drafts under a given GM to be able to read anything into it. Even a GM who has been around as long as Benning, I mean, you're still talking N=7. We would need like 100 drafts for it to be a meaningful sample size IMO. I mean I do it for fun, but it's for entertainment purposes only. I don't seriously think we can evaluate a GM's drafting "ability" this way.

I actually think the potato is a better method, because it makes picks based on the players that are actually available, rather than just the pick position (pick position will vary in quality year-over-year e.g. compare 2003 to 2012.)

You're right - I don't mean to suggest it would be a definitive stat, but I do think you can use it as 'one datapoint' in an argument on overall ability. I think the hardest part is really defining the arbitrary metric of 'a successful pick' as you had mentioned, but at least it would be a consistent metric. Of course, this is also super, super lagging - like, 10-15yrs lagging to really be truthful. Also, merely that N=7 for Benning is decent conjecture against his 'vaunted drafting' or I suppose an argument at least that he's not playing to his 'strengths'.

Else, how many metrics do we have that actually show GMJB as being successful at something, reasonably consistently above averages/noise?

Edit: I think I misunderstood what you were referring to with n=7 - I'm assuming you meant number of times drafting, discounting later years with insufficient data. If you meant number of drafts completely, I think you can look more granularly at each draft selection which gives a larger sample size. My point was that he traded away a lot, which is what I thought you meant with that low n - and I haven't tried to figure out exactly where you cutoff would've been vs. how many picks benning has had.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with any of this.

I don't think it's controversial to say that Benning's drafting has been average or good. Gillis was awful, yes, we've been over that. But why does Benning have 1000 more responsibilities if we are just going to say "but drafting".

He's had 7 drafts to right that ship, you'd think we'd be done by now. We don't need a drafting guy if he's supposedly fixed the department. We need a guy who can supplement the high-end talent he's drafted, a guy who can acquire cost-effective players to put us over the top.

 

[mathonwy]

I came here from another fan forum, where the Benning regime was seen as creating a “land of milk and honey”. It took me about 1/2 a year to finally see the truth. Had to get those blinders off. The knowledge on this board, and posters’ acceptance and presentation of reality is so much better than my former board, where the mods expel those who don’t drink the green, blue, and white Kool Aide.

HFCanucks is the shiznit

 

[JAK]

Skimmed through the page, someone said potato.

Ok, we should draft players by their ranking of favourite potatos.

Probably will have the same chance of landing good picks as any other way.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I always make a distinction here that from what I've seen Benning is the most inept GM I've ever seen.

A lot of what gets people like Milbury a bad rap are those big explosive bad trades, there's a lot of insanity in his management that leads to that but he was still able to get some really good deals and put a playoff team together for a few seasons. You don't always have the opportunity to bomb these big deals though, and that's where Benning flies under the radar as he took over a veteran team at the end of it's competitive run.

But when it comes to all the little things, the consistent day to day ineptness, Benning makes the bottom from my perspective. Like if you rated GM's the way EA rates NHL players, he'd have the lowest grades across the board. He just hasn't made as big a splash as some other GM's have, his former boss Chiarelli in Edmonton for instance. Though often it's not for the lack of trying - attempted Lucic and Subban trades.

I mean, if that's your honest opinion on him, that's cool.

Milbury's moves put the Islanders into a decades+ hole that they're now only crawling out of and his fingerprints are still being found on the franchise with the DiPietro buyout still on the books for another eight years. Benning has set the franchise back, but I don't think he has crippled the team or had such gross errors of judgment in evaluating talent (although, to be fair, you're correct in pointing out that it's not for lack of trying.)

Again, I think the bad far outweighs the good with Benning. My original point about rhetoric isn't meant to defend or deflect from him. I just don't see him as being the literal worst and I find the "Jim Benning's failure to understand [x] is beyond levels of bad. I can't comprehend how utterly terrible he is at [x]." to be a little counterproductive to fostering honest discussion.

But maybe it's warranted.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

What would be interesting to me is: to create a Statistic where the salary hits of opposing teams are plotted in each game and then to do various corrections based on these to equilibrate expected outcomes if the salaries at play were to be equal (if that makes sense).

They would probably be outmanned (in terms of capspace) every night and their expected/corrected outcomes for the Nucks would probably be much higher than their actual performance given they have so much dead cap space, but I would be interested to see it plotted. I suppose it could simply be the % of total cap space at play in each game.

If it catches on, I suggest it be called the 'Benning Index'; a fitting legacy.

 

[RussianRacket]

Sometimes I sit back and think, man what the hell did we do to deserve Boeser, Petya, Hughes, Hoglander, Pod, and more?

And ya'll wanna fire this guy. SMH.

 

[RussianRacket]

and Demko

 

[bandwagonesque]

People will bring up the lists to shit on Gillis that include Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, etc. while praising Pettersson, Hughes, etc. 3 StRaIgHt CaLdEr FiNaLiStS.
You've been on here since 2014 and you're disputing this?

That isn't what you said. You claimed posters had compared the two GMs' first round record without recognizing the difference between lottery picks and late firsts, which no one has done and which would be ridiculous. People do point out that Gillis' drafting in the first round was terrible, which is true, and that Benning has has a fair bit of success in the first round with picks that include lottery pics, which is also true. In any case, as another poster pointed out, Benning's late first round picks have been vastly more successful than Gillis' so there's a basis of comparison that doesn't require finding an equivalency between lottery picks and late firsts.

 

[Canucker]

Sometimes I sit back and think, man what the hell did we do to deserve Boeser, Petya, Hughes, Hoglander, Pod, and more?

And ya'll wanna fire this guy. SMH.

Lost a shit ton of games?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Lost a shit ton of games?

LMAO. Truth hurts. We could go into Benning's drafting but really, it's not about scouting for this team anymore. We are clearly past that and into a different phase that Benning has shown is far beyond his capabilities as a manager.

 

[Canucks LB]

So...who was the one who pushed for drafting Hoglander?
Give that man a raise