William Lockwood | RW

[Katobaron]

On November 16, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Tre Mac said:

When we see prospects like him and Gaudette doing well it's no wonder some of us facepalm when we see Benning throw in 2nd/3rd rounders to get a deal done.  Stop making lateral trades and use these picks to draft more players like Lockwood/Gaudette/Hutton/Tryankim.  That's the only way to build a winner.

 

On November 16, 2016 at 2:51 PM, JamesB said:

My feelings exactly. We want Benning to use his area of comparative advantage instead of playing to his weakness where more experienced GMs have the edge -- as in trades for veteran players, cap management, asset management, re-signing players,  etc. Benning's job should be to acquire draft picks (but only at reasonable cost) and made good draft choices.

 

I don't mean to sound condescending but why does everyone think that Benning only scouts amateur players and not pros? I'm sure the overall process is very similar, he just has better footage and intel to use in his analysis.

 

If we filled our roster with nothing but draft picks we'd have a bunch of kids who would have nothing but each other to fall back on. A lot of these draftees have never played an 82 game season, don't give post game interviews, have no previous experience in the pressures of playing at the NHL level and frankly don't have the structure and discipline to be both physically and mentally prepared to bring it every night.

 

What's happening now is a transition from a 30 something core to a 20 something core. Just because guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Markstrom etc aren't 18-21 doesn't mean that they're done developing and growing into pro hockey players. We're accelerating our rebuild by about 3-5 years and even though they haven't made the show yet doesn't mean that we don't have elite prospects as it is. The only way to get these guys in the 22-27 age range in a salary cap league is by giving up draft picks so unless we want a decade of Oiler hockey we're going to have to make some tough moves.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Katobaron

[73 Percent]

My god. that breakaway goal.

[RetroCanuck]

1 hour ago, WTG said:

Lockwood's breakaway snipe vs USNDT

https://streamable.com/0jwm

Wow... What a quick shot. This guy has me excited! With proper development this guy could be an absolute steal!

[Tystick]

I never imagined he would get this good, this fast!

In Benning We Trust.

[JamesB]

1 hour ago, Katobaron said:

 

 

I don't mean to sound condescending but why does everyone think that Benning only scouts amateur players and not pros? I'm sure the overall process is very similar, he just has better footage and intel to use in his analysis.

 

If we filled our roster with nothing but draft picks we'd have a bunch of kids who would have nothing but each other to fall back on. A lot of these draftees have never played an 82 game season, don't give post game interviews, have no previous experience in the pressures of playing at the NHL level and frankly don't have the structure and discipline to be both physically and mentally prepared to bring it every night.

 

What's happening now is a transition from a 30 something core to a 20 something core. Just because guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Markstrom etc aren't 18-21 doesn't mean that they're done developing and growing into pro hockey players. We're accelerating our rebuild by about 3-5 years and even though they haven't made the show yet doesn't mean that we don't have elite prospects as it is. The only way to get these guys in the 22-27 age range in a salary cap league is by giving up draft picks so unless we want a decade of Oiler hockey then we're going to have to make some tough moves.

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, JamesB said:

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

I thought I read here analytics in hockey just doesn't work?  The Coyotes and Panthers are the examples of absolute failure, no?

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

I like how you're presenting this as fact 

[Katobaron]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

He doesn't? From what I've seen he's not entirely dismissive of analytics, he just doesn't believe that at the end of the day a players value to a winning team can be quantified by numbers. All things in moderation?

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Katobaron said:

He doesn't? From what I've seen he's not entirely dismissive of analytics, he just doesn't believe that at the end of the day a players value to a winning team can be quantified by numbers. All things in moderation?

Especially stats for young guys coming from different leagues.  

[D.B Cooper]

The speed on that breakaway is straight up impressive.  

You don't see people that fast very often.  

Wow

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

3 hours ago, Katobaron said:

He doesn't? From what I've seen he's not entirely dismissive of analytics, he just doesn't believe that at the end of the day a players value to a winning team can be quantified by numbers. All things in moderation?

 

Honestly, there's no way to know how much or how little attention JB personally pays to analytics without actually talking to the man off the record on the subject (which is something none of us will likely ever get to do).

 

What we do know is that Benning admits they are a tool. One of many. But probably not the first one he reaches for in his toolbox.

 

He has referenced analytics sporadically (and usually subtly) in the occasional interview. I've heard him talk about zone entries, possession stats, and even some weird stat the Canucks seem to keep regarding the frequency their Ds are able to dispossess opponents of the puck in the defensive zone (possibly some proprietary stat).

 

But while he seems at least open to using stats, he also doesn't always seem to have the best knowledge of how some of them work or how they tie together. On some occasions, he's spoken about stats in ways that suggest he don't really have great knowledge of their value or applicability.

 

Then again, it's hard to really know anything about his real knowledge based on what he says in the press. 

 

I can remember him talking about defensemen being good because they have few giveaways. This was, IIRC, in response to a question regarding defensemen possession rates. It's pretty well known that turnover stats are, for the most part, pretty useless in assessing Ds. In fact, most team's best defensemen (and the best ones in the league) have the highest giveaway totals, simply by virtue of how often they handle the puck. Possession stats, however, can be a pretty good indicator of play quality (when used correctly anyway).

 

Whatever the case, what we do know is that the Canucks still run an analytics department (headed by Jonathan Wall) and that both Benning and Linden have mentioned that they regularly receive data prepared by that department.

 

How much they value that data is anyone's guess. But I suspect they use it much more than most people think.

 

We also know that the Canucks had an exclusive deal with Stathletes (Arizona GM John Chayka's company) until 2015 (when the contract expired and Chayka, and likely much of his intellectual property, was scooped up by the Coyotes).

 

And if Benning thought data collection and fancy stats were useless, he'd likely have gotten out of that deal rather than continue to pay for information he didn't value. I doubt it would have been tough to break the deal. Several teams would likely be lined up to take over (and probably pay Stathletes even more than what Vancouver was paying).

 

Also, while it's tough to say whether or not Benning makes much use of analytics personally, I do believe that many people within the organization are using stats to inform their decisions. Particularly in the scouting department, where the Canucks have targeted several players (especially late round picks and prospect invites/free agent signings) who matched up favourably with the new school stats based scouting methods (like prospect success probability models such as PCS, pGPS, and DEV).

 

I've posted on this topic before so I'm probably repeating a lot of stuff from my earlier posts (a couple of which went into more detail) but regardless of how much value Benning places on analytics, it's fairly clear that he uses them.

 

That said, it's also clear that he values his "eye test" more than the numbers. And that's not a bad thing. Both tools are imperfect. But the "eye test" is still the best tool in the box (so long as the set of eyes is a good one).

 

Stats would have told the Canucks to pass on draft picks like Gaudette and Lockwood (bringing this back, finally, to the thread topic). Those picks looked like bad bets according to the stats models. But they certainly show that somebody, whether it's Benning or the scouts, has a real good set of eyes.

Edited November 19, 2016 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Phat Fingers]

4 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

 

 

More like JB uses them, but analytics only factors into his roster moves.  To him, they are not the deciding factor as they are now with some other clubs. We should appreciate this from the Canucks prespective. GMMG was a hockey analytics pioneer, look how well that worked for us.  

 

Like vitamins, essential for life, but you still need your meat and potatoes!  

[JamesB]

17 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

This is a good question. Benning uses the "eye test" -- evaluating players based on how they look when he watches them play. And he has a good eye. That is fine for young players because good analytic data does not exist for players in junior. However, once players get to the NHL very careful data is collected. Some of it is public but a lot of it is private -- some teams collect their own analytics. Benning does not pay much attention to analytics. Therefore, other GMs have an advantage over Benning in the assessment of NHL players even though Benning has a better "eye" and is better in assessing young players. .

 

17 hours ago, J.R. said:

I like how you're presenting this as fact 

 

13 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

Honestly, there's no way to know how much or how little attention JB personally pays to analytics without actually talking to the man off the record on the subject (which is something none of us will likely ever get to do).

 

What we do know is that Benning admits they are a tool. One of many. But probably not the first one he reaches for in his toolbox.

 

He has referenced analytics sporadically (and usually subtly) in the occasional interview. I've heard him talk about zone entries, possession stats, and even some weird stat the Canucks seem to keep regarding the frequency their Ds are able to dispossess opponents of the puck in the defensive zone (possibly some proprietary stat).....

 

 

 

Great post from Sid. I wish I had written it.

 

I copied my own earlier post to respond to JR in context. My statement contains some facts but the main idea is that Benning does not pay much attention to analytics and is at a disadvantage relative to other GMs. That is an inference, not a demonstrable fact. But the underlying reasoning is provided in large part by Sid's post. 

 

I remember in particular that Benning defended re-signing Sbisa for a relatively high salary by pointing to Sbisa's low giveaway total. That shows a serious misunderstanding of analytics. As Sid points out, the Ds with the highest giveaway totals are the best Ds in the league. Last year the NHL giveaway leaders (looking at Ds only) were Subban, Burns, Doughty, and Karlsson -- 3 recent Norris trophy winners and one strong Norris contender. This year it is the same guys, with Weber also in the mix. No one who had a good understanding of analytics would make the statement Benning made.

 

Also, Benning has shown an inclination to make moves that run against the analytics community. Aside from the salary paid to re-sign Sbisa, the Gubranson trade, the Sutter trade (and overpaying to re-sign him), and overpaying to re-sign Dorsett are all decisions that were strongly criticized by the analytics community. None of those players are bad players but, relative to the analytics, Benning appears to overvalue all of them.  So, based on the evidence, my inference is that either Benning does not pay much attention to analytics relative to other GMs or he does not understand them as well as other GMs.

 

And, to be honest, while I like the fact that Benning is honest and I agree that he has a good eye, he does not come across to me as having the kind of intellectual curiosity and interest in "numbers" that most successful GMs have. I admit it is just an impression, but I can't see Benning enthusiastically examining the details of cap hits, performance stats, salary projections for RFAs, etc. Those are things Gilman was very good at -- among the best in the league -- and he and Benning apparently got along like oil and water (i.e. not well). Benning would rather be at the rink watching guys play. That is a good characteristic for a VP - Player development or chief scout, but not so good in a GM.

 

The Canucks do have an analytics group, as does every team in the NHL (I think), but that does not tell us how much the Canucks invest in analytics or how much attention Benning pays to analytics. My best guess is not much. I agree that analytics is only one tool and it requires skill to be used well. Asset management and salary cap analysis in another important skill. It is important to have guys in the organization who are good with all the important tools. It is okay if Benning is not good with analytics or asset management if other key decision-makers were, But Benning fired the guy was apparently willing to stand up to him (Gilman).

 

Possibly Benning is learning on the job. I hope he is.  

[vancan2233]

17 hours ago, drummerboy said:

The speed on that breakaway is straight up impressive.  

You don't see people that fast very often.  

Wow

He had so much speed in his first few strides, that he glided the last few feet, while the player chasing was still moving his legs as fast as he could. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by vancan2233

[aGENT]

35 minutes ago, JamesB said:

I remember in particular that Benning defended re-signing Sbisa for a relatively high salary by pointing to Sbisa's low giveaway total. That shows a serious misunderstanding of analytics. As Sid points out, the Ds with the highest giveaway totals are the best Ds in the league. Last year the NHL giveaway leaders (looking at Ds only) were Subban, Burns, Doughty, and Karlsson -- 3 recent Norris trophy winners and one strong Norris contender. This year it is the same guys, with Weber also in the mix. No one who had a good understanding of analytics would make the statement Benning made.

 

Also, Benning has shown an inclination to make moves that run against the analytics community. Aside from the salary paid to re-sign Sbisa, the Gubranson trade, the Sutter trade (and overpaying to re-sign him), and overpaying to re-sign Dorsett are all decisions that were strongly criticized by the analytics community. None of those players are bad players but, relative to the analytics, Benning appears to overvalue all of them.  So, based on the evidence, my inference is that either Benning does not pay much attention to analytics relative to other GMs or he does not understand them as well as other GMs.

 

There's so much wrong with this it's almost funny. 

 

Comparing Sbisa to the Doughty's et al without the context of their usage, QOC and partner etc is why simplistic and bad usage of analytics are a complete waste of time. 

 

You're entire premise that Benning doesn't either understand or fully utilize analytics is because some bad analysts with agendas did bad analysis that is counter to moves Benning has made.

 

That doesn't mean Benning doesn't understand or use analytics. It means he  likely understands them far better than the simpletons critiquing him with their poor usage of them. 

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

...

I remember in particular that Benning defended re-signing Sbisa for a relatively high salary by pointing to Sbisa's low giveaway total. That shows a serious misunderstanding of analytics. As Sid points out, the Ds with the highest giveaway totals are the best Ds in the league. Last year the NHL giveaway leaders (looking at Ds only) were Subban, Burns, Doughty, and Karlsson -- 3 recent Norris trophy winners and one strong Norris contender. This year it is the same guys, with Weber also in the mix. No one who had a good understanding of analytics would make the statement Benning made.

...

I don't remember the quote, but it's also incorrect to discount a defender with low giveaways (or a strong takeaway to giveaway ratio). Sure, the best puck carriers will have a high number of giveaways as they handle the puck so frequently that they're bound to have some turnovers, but those who are distributors (or just trusted to get the puck out of their zone as needed) who also have low giveaways are actually useful. Take those giveaways or the ratio and apply them to the context of their usage and it might give a better picture of how good a player is.

 

That's the problem with people who don't understand analytics, they think the pro-stats people are trying to say you can distill a player down to a number or two and quantify them. In reality, it's more about giving context among a larger number of analytics and regular stats combined with watching a player.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

I don't remember the quote, but it's also incorrect to discount a defender with low giveaways (or a strong takeaway to giveaway ratio). Sure, the best puck carriers will have a high number of giveaways as they handle the puck so frequently that they're bound to have some turnovers, but those who are distributors (or just trusted to get the puck out of their zone as needed) who also have low giveaways are actually useful. Take those giveaways or the ratio and apply them to the context of their usage and it might give a better picture of how good a player is.

 

That's the problem with people who don't understand analytics, they think the pro-stats people are trying to say you can distill a player down to a number or two and quantify them. In reality, it's more about giving context among a larger number of analytics and regular stats combined with watching a player.

 

@#$%'ing 'hero' charts!!!

 

[Warhippy]

So

 

How bout that Lockwood 

[aGENT]

16 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

So

 

How bout that Lockwood 

 

Not sure what his hero chart looks like. 

[JamesB]

6 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I don't remember the quote, but it's also incorrect to discount a defender with low giveaways (or a strong takeaway to giveaway ratio). Sure, the best puck carriers will have a high number of giveaways as they handle the puck so frequently that they're bound to have some turnovers, but those who are distributors (or just trusted to get the puck out of their zone as needed) who also have low giveaways are actually useful. Take those giveaways or the ratio and apply them to the context of their usage and it might give a better picture of how good a player is.

 

That's the problem with people who don't understand analytics, they think the pro-stats people are trying to say you can distill a player down to a number or two and quantify them. In reality, it's more about giving context among a larger number of analytics and regular stats combined with watching a player.

 

I agree with this comment and that was really my point. It did not make sense to justify re-signing Sbisa for a high salary by referring to his low giveaway numbers. He had low giveaways because he did not carry the puck much. I mentioned Karlsson, Subban, etc. just to demonstrate the point that looking at giveaways in themselves don't tell you much about a defenceman's value.  It was therefore a mistake, in my view, for Benning to refer to Sbisa's low giveaway number out of context.

 

Here is an article from Canucks Army that refers to this quote, by the way. http://canucksarmy.com/2015/7/5/laurence-gilman-hockey-innovation-and-the-future-of-the-canucks-front-office.

 

I agree completely with Elvis that it is possible to relate giveaways to some relevant metric, like completed passes or zone exits, to get a sense which players do a good job of protecting the puck relative to what they are asked to do. I believe that some teams do try to collect such metrics. I don't know if the Canucks do.