A Tale of Two Bennings

[RonMexico]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

I don't think you give Benning enough credit and have recognized the patience that's involved and workarounds these guys have to deal with (injuries, players' decisions to do something different/bolt, etc.).  While having plan b's and depth is part of that....it also changes game plans at times.

 

And to be "lucky" with draft picks?  Sort of offsets some of the unluckier aspects of his tenure.  So you've actually helped highlight that, to some degree, luck is involved. That when he picks, chooses, selects, trades for players it's somewhat out of his control if they live up to things and we're quick to assign blame but, in the next breath, credit "luck" for things that do work out.  It's at both ends that some faith/luck factor in.

 

People want immediate decisions, moves and results in a deal that has ever changing parts and others who determine if we get what we want or not.  All the teams vying for the same thing.

 

I don't feel I'm qualified to assess Benning and it feels slightly ego driven to do so.  We all feel we have the answers in this world and are quick to judge and criticize others...but the only true test is walking a mile in their shoes.  And we simply don't have the ability to do so.

 

The measure in all of this will mostly be the end product/results....the beginning was just that.  Some times pieces are added/subtracted on a more temporary basis as fill gaps...but maybe aren't part of the long term picture.  Some times players will be put into place for more than just their on ice contributions...in the room and to help guide the newer guys coming in.

 

So many "moves" have been harshly reacted to initially but have really worked out well.  There will be good and bad...happens with every team that deals with not only skill but individuals who are at different levels of commitment and investment.  Work ethic is huge but you don't always see where that's set at.  A player's flexibility and cooperation....do they willingly do what's asked of them or sulk and pout and make demands?  

 

When you deal with a "team" of multiple individuals it can take time to strike the right balance.  Especially when you're adopting the team and then having to work around the restrictions noted.  The sample size wasn't there in the beginning and now is...so I'd say he's done well overall to get us to the point we're at right now.  

 

I played Be a GM mode in NHL 10 so I know how to do Benning's job better than him. I know exactly what a GM does and I can fleece every AI GM. AI is no different than talking to a real person right?

[JamesB]

13 hours ago, The Game said:

Everyone always brings up what a great scout Benning is but he’s whiffed on two really high draft picks (Jake at 6, Juolevi at 5). Sure Pettersson and Hughes look amazing, but top end draft picks are supposed to turn out into great players. The only players drafted by Benning in the later rounds currently playing for our team are Demko and Gaudette. I don’t feel like he’s this big draft guru that everyone is making him out to be.  

 

12 hours ago, coastal.view said:

so your criteria for success is

every first round pick must be a star or superstar

jb has not missed on any 1st round pick

 

go look at other teams

see how many gms can say that

and the look at the home run drafts he achieved

ep40, brock, well hughes did fall in his lap

but gaudette, demko, and i'm sure i'm missing others

an no, ep40 did not fall to him, the consensus on these boards was glass

 

I thought I would weigh in on this. Is Benning's draft record good?

 

I find it weird to be defending Benning. I was critical of the JV and OJ picks when they were made and I am still critical. On the other hand, I wanted Glass ahead of EP and I had no idea about Boeser or Demko. And I was very critical of Benning's record in other areas during his first three years. That said, his draft record is very good to excellent.

 

The expected value of draft picks has been studied a lot. Here is a chart taken from one of the best articles, although it is getting a bit old. See https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

 

 

This diagram is based on how players drafted between 1995 and 2007 did up through 2015. It is based only on forwards and looks only at pts per game.

 

But it is very revealing. The expected value for a first overall pick is 0.8 PPG, The expected value for second overall is about 0.71, For third overall it drops down to about 0.57 and 4, 5, and 6 drop down to about 0.4. The rest of the top 10 clusters in the 0.3 to 0.4 range.

 

That includes early years when players might not score much so the scoring rates in their prime years will be a bit higher.

 

But here is a translation, with some extra data from other sources thrown in. You should get a good first liner if you pick 1st or 2nd overall. You expect to get a guy who, in his prime and near-prime years (say 23 to 30), is a good second liner if you pick in the 3 to 6 range. If pick in the rest of the top 10 you expect to get sa olid NHL regular but if he becomes a top 6 players you have beaten the average or expected value.  

 

In the first round outside the top 10 you expect to get an NHL player but probably a guy who peaks as a bottom 6 forward. And a lot of first rounders outside the top 10 (about a third) never become NHL regulars. Most second rounders never become NHL regulars, although your odds are pretty good of getting an NHL player in the high second round -- maybe about 40%. In the third round your chances are maybe 20%. Beyond that, the chance of getting an NHL regular drops to about 10% and does not change much from round to round.

 

So, EP and Boeser are performing at the expected value of guys chosen first overall. If we do a translation for D-men, Hughes is also performing like a guy chosen in the top 3. Virtanen has a record more like a guy chosen in the 15-20 range in the first round. Demko is great pick for a second rounder. Juolevi has been disappointing so far and I am not convinced he will ever by an NHL regular. But it is too early to make the final call and guys like Woo and Lind are looking pretty good for 2nd rounders at this stage. And lots of other guys look like they have a decent shot at becoming NHL regulars.

 

If you look at other GMs, very few have a record as consistently good as Benning. In aggregate, Benning is way ahead of the overall expected value for the portfolio of draft picks he has had. Every GM, even the GMs who built LA, Chicago, and other multi-Cup teams, they have about as many misses as hits with their first round picks.

 

So, on a hindsight basis, Benning has made some drafting mistakes. But, compared to other GMs, his record in this area is very good -- much, much better than his record in other areas such as UFA signings.  

 

 

[alt kilgore]

20 hours ago, JamesB said:

There are not as many Benning critics as there used to be................

 

Anyway, I don't want to get carried away, but this team is obviously looking very good. And, with the key players all signed through next year (except Markstrom but with Demko in line to take over if necessary), the team should be even better next year as the young guys currently playing on the team improve further and other young guys like Lind or Tryamkin might help the team. The Canucks have a shot to be really good this year and next year with EP and Hughes still on entry-level contracts, and Boeser, Horvat, Edler and other core players on very reasonable contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

Great OP.  

Its not as black and white as some want to portray it.  JB made some good trades, JB made some bad trades. JB made some bad draft picks, JB made some amazing draft picks. JB signed some terrible free agent contracts, JB signed some good free agents.  But I agree, and its pretty obvious, that he has improved on the job.  Combined with, although not proven, Aquilini taking his hands off the reigns and allowing him to do his rebuild job.

 

No one is completely right about JB's tenure, including me.  We don't know exactly what goes on behind closed doors. Face it, the team was in an difficult position in 2016, for any new GM. After Willie's first year where we made the playoffs.  Maybe if we would have been on the bottom instead then, the rebuild would have actually began then. But I can sympathize with a new ownership that were convinced we could get back to the dance again, by adding a piece here or there, even if they were mostly cast-offs and overpriced. 

 

And then there was the Sedin conundrum.  We owed them another run. We owed them to delay the rebuild, sacrifice our immediate future by trading away prospects and draft picks. To a degree. Its how big a degree that is in question. IMO, during the 2016/2017 season JB should have done what the Rangers or Leafs did and announce there would be pain, and everyone and anyone was up for trades. And no picks would be traded away. In fact he would be looking for ways to garner more picks.

 

But the Sedins..... It was a no win, in more ways than one. They were too good still, too beloved, to much owing, And they came as a pair.  A $14 million dollar cap hit. It would be difficult to trade them even IF they were open to it. But JB, assuming he would have been allowed to, could have gone all Wally Buono on the team and played harder ball with the vets left to accept being traded. And the Sedins, would have to accept, if they weren't traded, being the godfathers of the new rebuild.  Knowing them, they may have accepted that role gladly.

 

Now luck is also a part of any team's success. Draft luck, Injury luck, Trade luck, referee luck. Its just that Canuck luck has been so rare we aren't used to it.  Drafting has been hit and miss.  JB has had more luck in these last years than when he started. And how would the chips have fallen if we'd had shed more vets and actually finished worse in Petey's draft year, and picked higher. We may have overlooked him.  So luck works both ways.

 

Injury bad luck was a big factor as well.  Payers like Hamhuis, and Vrbata, I think Hansen was in there as well, were injured at the exact wrong time, just before more than one TDL.  Injuries probably also helped us drop in the standings, allowing us to pick higher. Along with underperforming bad signings.  Mistakes in management...or good luck? I say a combination.

 

If we'd have begun the rebuild earlier, we'd have a deeper pool of prospects for the coming years, may not have had to trade our #1 pick for Miller, and better set up for our next wave to support the young players just emerging now. But as things turned out, a combination of great scouting and luck, plus some decent free agent signings, we find ourselves in a good position. However we got here it has to be a glass half full for me now.  We stumbled into a successful rebuild.  And I'm good with that. Go Canucks Go!

[IBatch]

44 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

I thought I would weigh in on this. Is Benning's draft record good?

 

I find it weird to be defending Benning. I was critical of the JV and OJ picks when they were made and I am still critical. On the other hand, I wanted Glass ahead of EP and I had no idea about Boeser or Demko. And I was very critical of Benning's record in other areas during his first three years. That said, his draft record is very good to excellent.

 

The expected value of draft picks has been studied a lot. Here is a chart taken from one of the best articles, although it is getting a bit old. See https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

 

 

This diagram is based on how players drafted between 1995 and 2007 did up through 2015. It is based only on forwards and looks only at pts per game.

 

But it is very revealing. The expected value for a first overall pick is 0.8 PPG, The expected value for second overall is about 0.71, For third overall it drops down to about 0.57 and 4, 5, and 6 drop down to about 0.4. The rest of the top 10 clusters in the 0.3 to 0.4 range.

 

That includes early years when players might not score much so the scoring rates in their prime years will be a bit higher.

 

But here is a translation, with some extra data from other sources thrown in. You should get a good first liner if you pick 1st or 2nd overall. You expect to get a guy who, in his prime and near-prime years (say 23 to 30), is a good second liner if you pick in the 3 to 6 range. If pick in the rest of the top 10 you expect to get sa olid NHL regular but if he becomes a top 6 players you have beaten the average or expected value.  

 

In the first round outside the top 10 you expect to get an NHL player but probably a guy who peaks as a bottom 6 forward. And a lot of first rounders outside the top 10 (about a third) never become NHL regulars. Most second rounders never become NHL regulars, although your odds are pretty good of getting an NHL player in the high second round -- maybe about 40%. In the third round your chances are maybe 20%. Beyond that, the chance of getting an NHL regular drops to about 10% and does not change much from round to round.

 

So, EP and Boeser are performing at the expected value of guys chosen first overall. If we do a translation for D-men, Hughes is also performing like a guy chosen in the top 3. Virtanen has a record more like a guy chosen in the 15-20 range in the first round. Demko is great pick for a second rounder. Juolevi has been disappointing so far and I am not convinced he will ever by an NHL regular. But it is too early to make the final call and guys like Woo and Lind are looking pretty good for 2nd rounders at this stage. And lots of other guys look like they have a decent shot at becoming NHL regulars.

 

If you look at other GMs, very few have a record as consistently good as Benning. In aggregate, Benning is way ahead of the overall expected value for the portfolio of draft picks he has had. Every GM, even the GMs who built LA, Chicago, and other multi-Cup teams, they have about as many misses as hits with their first round picks.

 

So, on a hindsight basis, Benning has made some drafting mistakes. But, compared to other GMs, his record in this area is very good -- much, much better than his record in other areas such as UFA signings.  

 

 

I like the model some scouts use and THN adopted for what’s considered a bust (different then your model) as the quality of the pick matters like yours suggests.  Picks in the 1-3 range under 700 games is a bust 4-10 under 400 and the rest of the first round under 200 games.   By this model JV is well on his way not to be a bust - OJ is definitely still on the fence - injuries played into that but it doesn’t matter.  They also have metrics for complete busts, and these numbers are considered the acceptable low bar. 

 

Also past the first round things do a huge nosedive as far as hits go (play 200 games) and misses given half the field won’t make it barely to 100 in the second round.   Third round hits are around 12.5% the past twenties years  - which also needs to be fully considered as guys can play that long.    Based on this alone JB has been dynamite - AG and Tree already have him ahead of the odds given the 12.5 is an average of one every 8 years.   He’s a bit behind on second rounders (for now but I expect he won’t be in three years) and almost perfect with his firsts- depends a lot on OJ.   Extra points for stars - so far he’s drafted one, and a probable super star (top five in position) in EP....

 

People complain about the OJ pick because a better player dropped to us ... then again good thing it wasn’t Pool-Party right?  I definitely did.  BUT zero of the guys I wanted since he started are doing well with the exception of MT (yet - do believe Glass will be a solid pick in time)...also it’s not right to judge second rounders for at least three years.   He didn’t have all his early ones (Vey), but hit on McAan as later first rounder, Demko and it’s still early to go much past that (was Lind the next one?)7

Woo looks like a hit, Madden and maybe Lind too it’s too early.

 

 

So far compared to most years in the past - we have never had a better run of picks ever / for a long time fan that props him up a little for sure.   

 

From one viewpoint THN does an annual ranking of 21 and unders which covers fast start guys playing AND the entire prospect pool which is ranked too.  We’ve been four or five spots AHEAD of our average draft slot over that period of four years twice in a row - which means even though we’ve drafted around 7-8 during that time - we’ve drafted like we were 2-3...and we b!!ch about the lottery ha ha.   Hughes is ranked 10th right now, ahead of his entire draft class with the exception of Dahlin who is 1, EP is 2 ahead of everyone in his draft class.   BB and Demko have aged out so aren’t included....yet we are still top three overall.   They do it as it’s a very good prediction tool for four or five years later when that group of guys are in their early primes - so basically what it tells us we should be a top 1-3 team in the entire league at some point in the next five years....

 

It Take an Army won’t stop his campaign and a few others / which is fine.  And just because you write something doesn’t make it fact either.    

 

I was on the fence for the first three years until he traded Hansen and Burrows.  By then I could see what he was doing (rebuilding on the sly) while honouring the legends in the Sedins - a full tank was never part of his methods.   Placeholders, flips and development plus drafting sure was.   Never thought we had a chance .... damn him for bringing so much hope back after the best team we ever had imploded over a 12 month period when they still had a 2-3 year window....better work, didn’t want to get my spirits up too much - now he’s gone ahead and made us a good team already...

[Angry Goose]

Trevor Linden called JB a team builder for a reason.  He's been slowly adding the pieces he thinks a competitive team needs while patiently drafting and developing young talent.  Sure, not all the big acquisitions e.g. gudbranson have worked out but you can see why he would identify certain players like him.  The turn around has been a slow one for us Homer fans but relative to other rebuilding teams, it's actually been pretty good.

Edited November 5, 2019 by SILLY GOOSE

[Dr. Crossbar]

15 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

What JB did from day one was try to improve the team.  Not at all costs - he kept his 1sts and most of his picks - but the “sea of granlunds” ensured we had enough internal competition that we wouldn’t rush guys like we did with Virt and McCann.  He kept trying to cycle high character guys though the room.  He never let the team use the “rebuilding” excuse to stop trying to win. 

Agree. I'd even go as far as saying on a certain level he didn't have much of a choice but to try and improve the team while also changing the team.

 

I've said this before but if you look at the guys who had NTC/NMCs at the time in year two - Hank, Danny, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins, Hamhuis - they were all going to keep the team competitive. It's not like those guys were suddenly going to stop trying to win.

 

So, he had one half of the line up that would be compeitive and the other half to not only try to improve but also create necessary change. 

 

The key interim solution was to bring in guys that were more NHL ready over rushing the youth. He cycled a number of former first rounders from a reclamation standpoint and gave them opportunities. And really, when experimenting like that, you already know the chips will land where they land. Some will work, others won't. Like you said, though, it created internal competition. 

 

From my view, this approach was a win - win on several levels. Those players were either going to stick, shine, and improve the team or keep the status-quo compeitive and become temporary placeholders, exposing more areas of improvement while also creating more development time. 

 

 

[aGENT]

17 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

Agreed.  Critics played (play) both ends of the coin when it comes to Benning.  

 

The team was never good enough and because of that the drafting wasn’t good enough because... if the team isn’t good, you should be all in on the tank/draft strategy.  
 

What JB did from day one was try to improve the team.  Not at all costs - he kept his 1sts and most of his picks - but the “sea of granlunds” ensured we had enough internal competition that we wouldn’t rush guys like we did with Virt and McCann.  He kept trying to cycle high character guys though the room.  He never let the team use the “rebuilding” excuse to stop trying to win. 
 

This is hopefully the season our top end talent finally caught up to the culture being cultivated.  We don’t have any outlier players.  No problem children.  Just a good, solid team that plays the right way.  
 

That’s not a fluke or accident and despite all of JB’s well documented missteps, I think (along with drafting, obviously) it’s the big difference between us being relevant for our young core’s prime and stumbling for a few more seasons trying to find that identity.  
 

Of course, I’m biased because I’ve been pushing that angle for awhile... but it’s feeling pretty good right now.

This.

[189lb enforcers?]

EP.

One player changed the fortunes of this rebuild. 

 

However this club ended up at the #5 slot that year, is water under the bridge for many of us. I won’t go down that tired road anymore. 

[RonMexico]

8 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

EP.

One player changed the fortunes of this rebuild. 

 

However this club ended up at the #5 slot that year, is water under the bridge for many of us. I won’t go down that tired road anymore. 

 

Yes but that's how it works. You draft high when you suck and hopefully you get the Sedins instead of Patrick Stefan. etc etc

[SWANK]

23 hours ago, RonMexico said:

Disagree on this point.

 

You learn on the job as AGM. Then when you take over, you already know all the ins and outs. Granted his mentor was clearly suspect but you don't fall backwards into a Cup.

 

I do agree that learning by doing is a fundamental aspect of human activity but in this case, I think doesn't 100% apply. There are a few things you will learn on your own but by and large you gotta have a really good idea if you were an AGM first.

 

To my eyes, I saw a team in disarray and he tried to plug the holes of a sinking ship. Sure there were more misses than hits in the early going but that's par for the course in this business.

You could say this.... but Paul Fenton learned from a great gm in David Poile and look how that turned out... imo being a Gm is going to have a learning curve regardless. Also I think Benning saw a team with a bunch of vets locked up into term and tried to give the Sedins a winning shot. Of course it's not the smart way to go but you weren't trading the Twins so he tried to fill holes to improve the team short term. Eriksson was a huge mistake tho.

[10pavelbure96]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

EP.

One player changed the fortunes of this rebuild. 

 

However this club ended up at the #5 slot that year, is water under the bridge for many of us. I won’t go down that tired road anymore. 

Yes and most people around the world and on CDC wanted cody glass. I remember a lot of "who?" Posts and some angry doom and gloom ones as per usual.

 

Benning has hit 3 home runs with boeser Pettersson and Hughes, ya some say Quinn fell to us but there was a lot of other good players available as well. A lot of people were skeptical because of his size and stature. 

 

Gaudette and Demko look to be surefire home runs too. 

 

Since Juolevi and Virtanen (who could still work out great as late bloomers) Benning has been an absolute beast at the draft table.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, RonMexico said:

 

Yes but that's how it works. You draft high when you suck and hopefully you get the Sedins instead of Patrick Stefan. etc etc

Thing is it usually takes a lot of turns at the bat to hit a home run like this.  He had one other top five pick in one of the best drafts the last decade or so and missed.   Might have saved his job with this pick - definitely changed the face of the franchise and brought in a lot of hope too.  EDM won McDavid after how many cracks at the bat including a total bust in Yakupov...Hall was a great pick but he’s gone, Eberle so-so, same with Nurse although he seem to be turning things around.   They are on their second rebuild and maybe they’ve finally got there.  With just Horvat and Markstrom from our last core (and we are a top team ugh, double ugh) to start with JB has done an admirable job.  BB isn’t chopped liver either.   

[Hindustan Smyl]

12 hours ago, RonMexico said:

 

I played Be a GM mode in NHL 10 so I know how to do Benning's job better than him. I know exactly what a GM does and I can fleece every AI GM. AI is no different than talking to a real person right?

Sadly enough, many 18-24 year olds at the toilet bowl known as HF Canucks think similar to this.   
 

“Hey!  It’s a rebuild!  Let’s trade everyone 25 and over for draft picks so that we can get a bunch of 4.5 “green stars” and become really really good in 2-3 years!!!!”

[189lb enforcers?]

8 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Sadly enough, many 18-24 year olds at the toilet bowl known as HF Canucks think similar to this.   
 

“Hey!  It’s a rebuild!  Let’s trade everyone 25 and over for draft picks so that we can get a bunch of 4.5 “green stars” and become really really good in 2-3 years!!!!”

When your strength is drafting though, not much of a stretch to imagine success 

[Goat James]

On 11/5/2019 at 8:22 PM, JamesB said:

 

I thought I would weigh in on this. Is Benning's draft record good?

 

I find it weird to be defending Benning. I was critical of the JV and OJ picks when they were made and I am still critical. On the other hand, I wanted Glass ahead of EP and I had no idea about Boeser or Demko. And I was very critical of Benning's record in other areas during his first three years. That said, his draft record is very good to excellent.

 

The expected value of draft picks has been studied a lot. Here is a chart taken from one of the best articles, although it is getting a bit old. See https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

 

 

This diagram is based on how players drafted between 1995 and 2007 did up through 2015. It is based only on forwards and looks only at pts per game.

 

But it is very revealing. The expected value for a first overall pick is 0.8 PPG, The expected value for second overall is about 0.71, For third overall it drops down to about 0.57 and 4, 5, and 6 drop down to about 0.4. The rest of the top 10 clusters in the 0.3 to 0.4 range.

 

That includes early years when players might not score much so the scoring rates in their prime years will be a bit higher.

 

But here is a translation, with some extra data from other sources thrown in. You should get a good first liner if you pick 1st or 2nd overall. You expect to get a guy who, in his prime and near-prime years (say 23 to 30), is a good second liner if you pick in the 3 to 6 range. If pick in the rest of the top 10 you expect to get sa olid NHL regular but if he becomes a top 6 players you have beaten the average or expected value.  

 

In the first round outside the top 10 you expect to get an NHL player but probably a guy who peaks as a bottom 6 forward. And a lot of first rounders outside the top 10 (about a third) never become NHL regulars. Most second rounders never become NHL regulars, although your odds are pretty good of getting an NHL player in the high second round -- maybe about 40%. In the third round your chances are maybe 20%. Beyond that, the chance of getting an NHL regular drops to about 10% and does not change much from round to round.

 

So, EP and Boeser are performing at the expected value of guys chosen first overall. If we do a translation for D-men, Hughes is also performing like a guy chosen in the top 3. Virtanen has a record more like a guy chosen in the 15-20 range in the first round. Demko is great pick for a second rounder. Juolevi has been disappointing so far and I am not convinced he will ever by an NHL regular. But it is too early to make the final call and guys like Woo and Lind are looking pretty good for 2nd rounders at this stage. And lots of other guys look like they have a decent shot at becoming NHL regulars.

 

If you look at other GMs, very few have a record as consistently good as Benning. In aggregate, Benning is way ahead of the overall expected value for the portfolio of draft picks he has had. Every GM, even the GMs who built LA, Chicago, and other multi-Cup teams, they have about as many misses as hits with their first round picks.

 

So, on a hindsight basis, Benning has made some drafting mistakes. But, compared to other GMs, his record in this area is very good -- much, much better than his record in other areas such as UFA signings.  

 

 

 

 

I feel like we're saying basically the same thing, but I feel like I want to elaborate. I'm gonna start off by saying that I'm an engineering student, so I'm pretty well versed when it comes to math models. Your way of assessing draft picks works (pretty well) when trying to calculate a general value of a draft pick given its position, but it lacks A LOT when looking at specific examples.

 

For example: if the model concludes that a first overall pick is worth X, say a first line forward for 10 years, something like a Mitch Marner or a Leon Draisaitl. This would be great when looking at the overall value of a first overall pick (I do feel like you're undervaluing a first overall pick a bit when you say that Brock Boeser is performing like one, but nevertheless), and predicting future first overall pick and their values. But if you'd apply this model to a draft in the past, say the 2015 draft you'd run into huge problems.

 

We know that the first overall pick in 2015 was Connor McDavid, a generational talent who at this stage of his career looks like he's well on his way to becoming at least a top 10 player of all time. If you applied your model to this draft it would say that Peter Chiarelli would've had a great draft had he chosen Jack Eichel with the first overall pick (as Eichel is outperforming what a first overall pick has historically done), and that he'd gotten a passing grade had he chosen Marner, as Mitch looks to be about what you can expect from a first overall pick (given this model). 

 

I think that you'd have a hard time finding a single fan who would agree that the Oilers would've had a good draft, had they passed on McDavid and chosen either Eichel or Marner in 2015. 

 

If you look at the 2012 draft on the other hand, I would argue that the first real impact player picked was Filip Forsberg at #11, and I wouldn't call him a "first overall level talent". The 2012 draft was historically weak and leading in to the draft the consensus was that either Yakupov or Ryan Murray would go first. Saying that the Oilers had a bad draft when they picked Yakupov (who turned out being one of the worst first overall picks of the 21st century) is true, but saying that they should've picked Filip Forsberg is unrealistic, since no GM in the league would have done that given the Oiler's position, and even so, even given that Forsberg is the best player in the entire draft, he's still worse than most first overall picks are, thus the model would tell us that even he was chosen first overall (again, really unlikely since he wasn't considered a first overall talet at the time) whoever picked him would have had a bad draft.

 

My point in this is that when assessing such a small number of drafts as we are when talking about Benning, you have to look at them one by one to get a good idea of how good a job he's done, this being because the sample size is too small and that the expected value of a draft pick oscillates so much from year to year. The thing with mathematical models based on probabilities and stats work great when used with a really large sample size. you can, given enough data tell the difference between 50.01 % and 49.99 %, but given a small sample size, it can be impossible to tell 1/3 from 2/3. Again, what I'm saying is that the model (although sophisticated and based in facts) is not a good tool when trying to do what you're doing: assess single drafts.

 

I genuinely think that you have to look at Benning's drafts one by one and look at the picks that were made around his picks to tell how good a job he's done. And when doing this, I think it's clear to say that he's missed by quiet a wide margin on some of the picks (mainly in the 2014 and 2016 drafts), hit home runs in some (2015 and 2017), and that the 2018 draft is looking really good at the moment. And it is true that all GMs miss in the draft, but people on here go on and on about what a "draft wizard" he is, and I can't help but feel that if you've missed on two first rounders (both picked in the very beginning of their drafts) in a five year span; maybe you can't be considered a draft wizard. 

[JamesB]

4 hours ago, The Game said:

 

 

I feel like we're saying basically the same thing, but I feel like I want to elaborate. I'm gonna start off by saying that I'm an engineering student, so I'm pretty well versed when it comes to math models. Your way of assessing draft picks works (pretty well) when trying to calculate a general value of a draft pick given its position, but it lacks A LOT when looking at specific examples.

 

For example: if the model concludes that a first overall pick is worth X, say a first line forward for 10 years, something like a Mitch Marner or a Leon Draisaitl. This would be great when looking at the overall value of a first overall pick (I do feel like you're undervaluing a first overall pick a bit when you say that Brock Boeser is performing like one, but nevertheless), and predicting future first overall pick and their values. But if you'd apply this model to a draft in the past, say the 2015 draft you'd run into huge problems.

 

We know that the first overall pick in 2015 was Connor McDavid, a generational talent who at this stage of his career looks like he's well on his way to becoming at least a top 10 player of all time. If you applied your model to this draft it would say that Peter Chiarelli would've had a great draft had he chosen Jack Eichel with the first overall pick (as Eichel is outperforming what a first overall pick has historically done), and that he'd gotten a passing grade had he chosen Marner, as Mitch looks to be about what you can expect from a first overall pick (given this model). 

 

I think that you'd have a hard time finding a single fan who would agree that the Oilers would've had a good draft, had they passed on McDavid and chosen either Eichel or Marner in 2015. 

 

If you look at the 2012 draft on the other hand, I would argue that the first real impact player picked was Filip Forsberg at #11, and I wouldn't call him a "first overall level talent". The 2012 draft was historically weak and leading in to the draft the consensus was that either Yakupov or Ryan Murray would go first. Saying that the Oilers had a bad draft when they picked Yakupov (who turned out being one of the worst first overall picks of the 21st century) is true, but saying that they should've picked Filip Forsberg is unrealistic, since no GM in the league would have done that given the Oiler's position, and even so, even given that Forsberg is the best player in the entire draft, he's still worse than most first overall picks are, thus the model would tell us that even he was chosen first overall (again, really unlikely since he wasn't considered a first overall talet at the time) whoever picked him would have had a bad draft.

 

My point in this is that when assessing such a small number of drafts as we are when talking about Benning, you have to look at them one by one to get a good idea of how good a job he's done, this being because the sample size is too small and that the expected value of a draft pick oscillates so much from year to year. The thing with mathematical models based on probabilities and stats work great when used with a really large sample size. you can, given enough data tell the difference between 50.01 % and 49.99 %, but given a small sample size, it can be impossible to tell 1/3 from 2/3. Again, what I'm saying is that the model (although sophisticated and based in facts) is not a good tool when trying to do what you're doing: assess single drafts.

 

I genuinely think that you have to look at Benning's drafts one by one and look at the picks that were made around his picks to tell how good a job he's done. And when doing this, I think it's clear to say that he's missed by quiet a wide margin on some of the picks (mainly in the 2014 and 2016 drafts), hit home runs in some (2015 and 2017), and that the 2018 draft is looking really good at the moment. And it is true that all GMs miss in the draft, but people on here go on and on about what a "draft wizard" he is, and I can't help but feel that if you've missed on two first rounders (both picked in the very beginning of their drafts) in a five year span; maybe you can't be considered a draft wizard. 

Great comments.

 

1. I certainly agree that a more complete approach would be to evaluate each draft pick made by Benning (or at least every pick in the first two rounds) by comparing that pick with how players picked later did. Then that record could be compared with the record of other GMs. But that it a lot of work.

 

2. As you point out, just looking at averages can be misleading. If Edmonton had picked Eichel at first overall in 2015 that would look like a great pick relative to the averages, but we all know that if they had passed on McDavid to pick Eichel, that would have been a huge mistake.

 

3. However, I think looking at performance relative to averages is a good first approximation that can correct some biases.

 

4. One bias is that people tend to overestimate the value of high first round picks. When we think first overall we think McDavid, Crosby, and Ovechkin. But the average PPG for first overall picks (among forwards) is only about 0.8 PPG -- still very good, but not McDavid level.  The overall average at least provides a reasonable baseline against which to compare a given pick. In Benning's case, EP is obviously at rock star at #5 overall. Virtanen, while below average for a #6 overall pick, is not that far below and he could actually get up pretty close to the average with a few pretty good years. 

 

5. The other bias is that we tend to overestimate the draft performance of the best GMs. Chicago had a great rebuild, picking up Toews as #3 overall in 2006 and Kane at #1 overall in 2007. And they had picked Seabrook in the first round (14 overall) in 2003. But they had Cam Barker at #3 overall in 2004 and Jack Skille at #7 overall in 2005, And they added Kyle Beach at #11 overall in 2008. So out of 6 fairly high draft picks over 6 years, Chicago got three excellent picks who were the core (along with Keith) of three Stanley Cup wins in 6 years. But in that stretch of 6 fairly high draft picks in a row they also had three complete whiffs.   

 

6. The approach I take to Benning's draft record is to compare his record with overall averages and then add a further subjective element based on the details of a particular draft. Based on that his record looks good. I think his biggest mistake was Juolevi. I think Benning fell in love with him at the World Juniors. And he had become convinced that they had to draft a D instead of the BPA -- who pretty much everyone had as Tkachuk. I get the feeling that Brackett was not as high on Juolevi. Even if Juolevi turns out to be pretty good (which I doubt he will) that was a big mistake.

 

7. So I would never describe Benning as a draft genius or draft guru. But I think his record is good.  

 

.