Why do the statistics nerds hate Jim Benning?

The sixth anniversary of Jim Benning’s hiring as Vancouver Canucks general manager, not to mention an almost total lack of norts spews these days, has prompted a recent spate of report cards. The grades are in, and they’re not good because they are mostly issued by a younger, impatient set that relies mostly on statistics. This is the school of thought popularized in baseball as Moneyball, which relies on “analytics” over the good old-fashioned eye test. These nerds probably never played hockey, certainly not at the highest level like Benning did. They have never worked in an NHL organization, much less three as Benning has. He worked his way to the top on merit, yet these kids who only know how to run statistics seem to think they are qualified to judge him. In doing so, however, they show how little they know about hockey. There’s an old saying – statistics are for losers. It was never more applicable.

Jay-D Burke was on with Halford and The Brough on Friday and gave him a D. Luckily I was just getting into the shower when the cigar-smoking poseur came on and I got out just as he was finishing up. It was perfect timing. I did listen to his rant later online, however, in order to write this reply after I heard he gave Benning a D. He admitted that Benning got the best player out of the 2017 and 2018 draft classes despite picking fifth and seventh, respectively, but somehow he couldn’t even give him a passing grade. Unbelievable. His hatred for Benning knows no depths.

His reasons for failing Benning included a supposed salary cap Armageddon; the fact he hasn’t accumulated prospects and picks through trades; that the Canucks are a playoff bubble team; and that he is supposedly batting .500 with top 10 picks. I will deal with the salary cap and trade complaints later, but suffice it to say that, as usual, Burke couldn’t be more wrong. Given the hand he was dealt, the fact the Canucks are now pushing for a playoff spot is much to Benning’s credit. They are a team on the rise that has improved its point total each of the past three seasons.

From a cupboard that was almost bare, Benning has stocked it with so many prime prospects that the Canucks can now afford to start trading some of them for players who can help the team win now, as they did by sending Tyler Madden to L.A. in the Tyler Toffoli deal. And claiming that Benning is batting .500 with top 10 picks means he struck out on Jake Virtanen, which could not be farther from the truth. (Of course, the jury is still out on Olli Juolevi, who has been injured.) Virtanen has improved steadily over the past few years and is becoming a force in the league. He is exactly the kind of guy you need on a winning team. Power forwards take longer to develop, and while later picks William Nylander and Nikolaj Ehlers entered the league with more flash and dash, Virtanen will end up providing something they can’t. Talent isn’t everything, as Canucks fans found out for years. Talent plus toughness is what you need for a winning team. This is what Benning realizes and the analytics nerds don’t.

A more reasoned and reasonable analysis was found in the Athletic, the online-only subscription service that hopes to get sports fans to buck up for quality content despite a sea of it being available for free on the Internets. Stinkin’ boy genius Harman Dayal at least admits that Benning was dealt a tough hand on inheriting the team in 2014. Its aging core had peaked with the seven-game 2011 Stanley Cup Finals defeat at the hands of Benning’s Bruins. Key forward Ryan Kesler demanded a trade and tied Benning’s hands by agreeing to go to only a few teams. Yet by adding Ryan Miller, Radim Vrbata, Nick Bonino, Luca Sbisa and Derek Dorsett, among others, the Canucks were able to put together a 101-point season. They lost in the first round of the playoffs to lower-seed Calgary, however, largely due to poor play by Eddie Lack, who subbed in net for an injured Miller.

After that it was all downhill for two more seasons under coach Willie Desjardins as the Sedin twins declined and Benning desperately airlifted in players to support them, including Brandon Sutter, Sven Baertschi, Markus Granlund, Loui Erikkson, and Troy Stecher.  The team bottomed out with 69 points, their fewest in a full season since the millennium. Even then the losing didn’t end, as not one but two teams vaulted them in the draft lottery, leaving them to pick fifth instead of third. This is Jim Benning’s luck. Edmonton won the draft lottery four times in six years. The Canucks have never won it. This too, no doubt, is also Benning’s fault. That’s OK. He doesn’t need to win the draft lottery. He gets the best player anyway.

Dayal argues that Benning traded away picks and prospects during this period in an attempt to compete instead of hoarding them for the future. This is true, but there were good reasons for it that were out of Benning’s control. First was ownership’s desire to win and willingness to max out the salary cap and deal future assets to do so. Second was the continued presence of the Sedins, who refused to consider a trade that would have returned assets and allowed a full rebuild to begin. Mostly out of organizational respect for them, Benning did what he could to provide them a plausible supporting cast. 

Trading picks and prospects for lottery tickets like Baertschi, Granlund, Linden Vey, Andrey Pedan, Philip Larsen and Derrick Pouliot was ultimately a losing proposition, even if only one of those picks and prospects turns into a Rasmus Andersson. Signing Eriksson to a six-year, $36-million free agent contract was obviously the biggest blunder of Benning’s career, but who could have known that the wheels would fall off so quickly. Eriksson had always been a solid two-way player and the year before had potted 30 goals for the Bruins. Hopefully he will be erased soon with a compliance buyout.

While rightly noting that Benning’s trade and free-agent transactions have been hit and miss, Dayal points out that the Benning-era Canucks have “hit it out of the park on the draft floor.” He admits that it’s nitpicking to complain about a lack of contribution from players selected outside the first round, of whom only 2015 fifth-round pick Adam Gaudette has borne fruit. That ignores the fact that Benning’s first five picks in 2014 have all played in the league, including fifth-round pick Gustav Forsling, who was traded to Chicago. Third-round picks Nikita Tryamkin (2014) and Guillaime Brisebois (2015) are depth defencemen marinating in the system, while 2016’s Will Lockwood just went pro and 2017’s Mike DiPietro is starring in the minors.

Trades sent second rounders away in 2015 and 2016, but that round still returned backup goalie Thatcher Demko (2014), defence prospect Jett Woo (2018), and promising wingers Kole Lind (2017) and Nils Hoglander (2019). Let’s not forget defenceman Jack Rathbone, who was taken in the fourth round in 2016 and is currently starring for Harvard. Otherwise it’s still too early to pass judgment on Benning’s more recent picks. Dayal also admits, as does almost everyone else, that Benning hit another home run in trading for J.T. Miller and picked up solid single in unloading Erik Gudbranson for Tanner Pearson. Yet Dayal gives Benning only a C+. WTF? I think a B+ would be more like it.

These kids don’t know how good the Canucks have it with an eagle eye like Benning at the helm. They’d rather tank for higher draft picks. There’s a better word for tankers, and it’s the same one that applies to statistics. Look at the eternal misery in Edmonton if you don’t believe me. The geeks would rather have a collection of scoring stars than a well-built team. They’re not old enough to remember that the Canucks enjoyed high draft picks for years in the 1970s, but they never went anywhere until they traded a couple of them (Bill Derlago and Rick Vaive) for the grit and sandpaper that took them all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1982. I remember because I actually held an NHL press pass at the time.

Benning understands that there are two types of hockey players – singers and dancers. The singers often lose their voice when they’re asked to dance and there’s no on there to tap in for them. Half of Benning’s moves have seemingly been in a fruitless quest to to add toughness. He had it in pit bull Derek Dorsett until he suffered a career-ending neck injury. He thought he had it in hulking defenceman Erik Gudbrandson, a former third-overall draft pick who unfortunately couldn’t play well enough to merit a roster spot. The fact that Benning could trade him for Tanner Pearson, however, shows that what Guddy brings to the table is highly prized by some teams. Michael Ferkland’s signing as a free agent last year was supposed to give the Canucks a heavyweight again, but he’s been out with a concussion.

The analytics nerds bitch and moan when Benning brings in grit and sandpaper in the form of veterans Antoine Roussel and Jay Beagle. They complain about overpaying them but seem to not realize that $3 million is actually about average for an NHL salary these days and well below what most UFAs are paid. Worst of all, they whine, he signed them for four years when he surely could have got them on three-year contracts. Yeah, right. Dream on. Roussel was one of the top face-punchers in the league and Beagle was a regular for the Stanley Cup champs. Both have unfortunately been dogged by injuries since coming to the Canucks. This too is no doubt Benning’s fault.

Observers with longer memories see Benning’s record quite differently. They’re called “adults.” OK, boomers. Earlier this season when the Canucks were still in first place, Vancouver Sun-Province columnist Ed Willes even argued a case for Benning being the best GM in the NHL. “Did any GM do more to improve his team over the first half of this season than Jim Benning?” asked Willes, noting how high he placed in a Professional Hockey Writers Association mid-season poll for best boss. “Benning, as it happens, finished fourth, which at least means his work with the Canucks isn’t a complete mystery to the national media. But you wonder if the voters fully appreciate the transformation that has taken place in Vancouver and the turnaround Benning has helped create.”

You have to concede the Canucks’ GM has taken his team farther and in less time than any other GM in the league this season. . . . Benning has done more to rehabilitate his image and the image of his franchise than any other general manager this season. Maybe you had to be there to fully appreciate what’s taken place with the Canucks, but Benning should be recognized for his work. And when you consider everything that’s happened here in his five years on the job, that’s quite a story.

On his sixth anniversary, Willes gave Benning a similarly stellar review that must have curled the toes of kids like Jay-D and Harman. “If Benning was fired tomorrow he’d leave with the best draft record of any GM in Canucks’ history,” Willes pointed out. “Benning, at the very least, has set the franchise up for success and his moves during the last couple of years have delivered a series of wins for the Canucks. The lineup is deeper. It’s more dangerous.”

The difference between adults like Willes and the analytics geeks is that we can remember the years of drafting futility which saw the team pick first-round duds like Nathan Smith, Josh Holden, Libor Polasek, Alek Stojanov, Jason Herter and Dan Woodley. To have a GM like Benning who actually recognizes talent when he sees it is a refreshing change, but one the kids can’t appreciate. “The Canucks finally seem pointed in the right direction,” noted Willes. “Benning has proven to be an adept assessor of talent and his draft record remains the single-most impressive entry on his resume.”

I would argue that Benning is the best GM the Canucks have ever had, with the possible exception of The Big Irishman. Benning has gone about his job the right way by focusing on long-term success. His hands were tied on a complete rebuild, so he re-tooled the roster instead and has done an admirable job of it. The team is now set up for a decade of success in which Canucks fans will delight. Will the Benning bashers then give credit where it is due? I doubt it.