arsmaster*
Guest
I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.
When WD arrived, he had Kassian penciled in for the top 6 role. It was Burrows - Bonino - Kassian. Sedins were with Vrbata.
It's not like he didn't give him a chance. But then he was not consistent enough for a top 6 role, not doing the small things, and Higgins had to be moved up.
It's not like these coaches are trying to make Kassian a worse player. He theoretically has a lot of potential. Who doesn't want a 6'4 power forward in the top 6? But he was given a chance and it didn't work out.
I was a huge fan of Kassian when we traded Hodgson, but when 4 coaches couldn't turn him into the power forward, that's something he must figure out.
Ruff
Vigneault
Tortorella
Desjardins
I bet you those 4 coaches wouldn't be able to turn Patrick Kane into a power foward either. Doesn't mean he isn't a useful player and should be shipped out.
I see a player whose spurts of good play have often been de-railed by things outside of his control. Strong finish to a season, coach is fired and new management/regime tries to change his play. Start to play well with twins, suffer back injury.
I don't think Kassian will ever be a star, but I can see a productive middle six winger there for Montreal next year.
Not trying to absolve of all responsibility. I'm saying the stretches of solid, consistent productive play he had were derailed by things (firing of a coach, injury) that were outside of his control. He has had plenty of other stretches of unproductive, inconsistent play where it's definitely on him to get it back on track.
I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.
You chalk it about to external factors, I chalk it up to taking the job serious and seriously preparing for games. Simple difference of opinion. I share Richardson's opinion, that Kassian's inability to prepare for NHL games like a pro were the primary problems, you blame external factors.
I liked Kassian and was hoping he would breakout for us. Cheered for him. But 4 coaches also weren't able to stem the bleeding regarding scoring chances against every time he stepped on the ice. That was a bigger factor in his benching and poor play than him not being physical enough.
You're right, after the strong finish under Torts he shouldn't have fired him like that.
Stop beating around the bush, you know what you're saying is that Kassian is to blame for his own injuries.
And if you're right, and that is the problem, it's literally the easiest thing to fix, if a coaching staff can't keep players showing up ready to play what are you paying them for, because anyone could roll 1-2-3-4 and not motivate the troops.
No kidding, it's pretty ridiculous to say that Ruff couldn't get to him. Kassian also made significant strides under Torts.
This whole 4 coaches couldn't reach Kassian BS is very annoying to read.
arsmaster said:I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.
Especially since Kassian scored 8 goals in his final 16 games under Willie.
As I in the Eye mentioned, all the people now celebrating that we traded Kassian for nothing, were at the time celebrating how Benning and Willie turned him around.
Benning himself was commenting on how improved Kassian was just before he was hurt.
So what changed between then and now to make him a worthless piece of junk we should be getting rid of for nothing?
If people can't bend facts to support their narrative, they just flat-out start making them up.
I think the short-form takeaway of what i'm looking for is essentially:
-I'm not looking for "single game anecdotals", i'm looking for two large samples: 1."possession stats" on the large sample of games where the coaches were expressing clear displeasure with the state of Kassian's game, the benchings, call-outs in the media, etc.
2."possession stats" in the sample of games where each staff has expressed that he was making real progress, playing much more "the right way".
-It's rooted in this widespread notion that "Kassian was being misused/mistreated" and wasn't given enough opportunities, has all this huge untapped upside if only he was used more - in spite of his glaring issues with consistency. The "eye test" tells me that Kassian was a massively inconsistent player, and that he was a much better and more effective player in those stretches where he was generally being lauded for his improved play and doing the right things. I'm curious in whether that is reflected at all in the "possession stats". I'm curious if the "underuse" of Kassian was really just an "eye test" approach to incidentally protecting his "possession stats", having him benched and playing less in those instances where his game was not where it ought to be...playing him more and in greater opportunities when he was actually doing what was desired of him.
I mean you're right, i'm not likely to complete 180 on a player just because of some fancystats - any more than i'm likely to complete 180 based on any singular overall "eye test" account. Especially if they're being presented in one specific way as, "this is the way the stats are and digging further into it or looking at it from different perspectives is too much work and wrong". Any genius can look up the overall corsi numbers and form an opinion based primarily in that bulk lot...i just don't see huge value in that, especially when what i'm actually seeing when watching this player over the past number of years, is something (huge inconsistency) that an "overall average" fundamentally glosses over.
I don't think advanced stats are "useless", sometimes they shed light on interesting things that may not have been readily apparent and can make me think a bit (the fact that on the whole, a defensively suspect player like Kassian has fairly strong results would fall under that)...but i think they're often applied here in a very overly simplistic way, to situations that are far more complex than they really illustrate. And i think this Kassian case is one of those instances. If any "advanced stats" argument is going to truly going to massively sway my opinion, it's going to be something more fancy, advanced and comprehensive than a bulk lot of "shots for vs shots against" on the season average with a player whose game has been all over the map - up and down, good and bad.
I wouldn't start tabulating up the results for that because it would be a lot of tedious work to cross reference everything and all the rest - would be a lot easier if i had my own "advanced stats department" to set about on that task . But then...i'm not the one building the core of my opinion off these advanced stats in the first place; though if i were, i'd probably be wanting to dig a little deeper...
Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a
Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a
Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a
That doesn't seem to be his M.O...he seems to do the opposite.
Interesting. It seems to me that Benning has been very open and honest with the media (probably too much). I'm thinking that they did see Kassian as an improved player, but simply wanted Prust enough to offer up Kassian.
Not sure that jibes with the evidence available- reports say Benning had been talking to teams for months, even on the day he was traded they were shopping him hard. I don't see this as Benning targeting A couple players but rather doing anything to find a team willing to take on the risk.
In the end Montreals GM didn't want to take the 1 for 1 risk, he demanded insurance in the form of a 5th round pick
Not sure that jibes with the evidence available- reports say Benning had been talking to teams for months, even on the day he was traded they were shopping him hard. I don't see this as Benning targeting A couple players but rather doing anything to find a team willing to take on the risk.
In the end Montreals GM didn't want to take the 1 for 1 risk, he demanded insurance in the form of a 5th round pick
No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.
If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet
No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.
If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet
Yeah that narrative needs to die.No kidding, it's pretty ridiculous to say that Ruff couldn't get to him. Kassian also made significant strides under Torts.
This whole 4 coaches couldn't reach Kassian BS is very annoying to read.
No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.
If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet