Player Discussion Jake "Big Tuna" Virtanen | XVII Nikolaj Who...?

[CanaFan]

Not really irrational. It's just not accepting conclusions based on statistically insignificant data. It's actually the definition of rational. Trends are interesting to talk about. That doesn't mean they are statistically relevant.

What do you consider statistically insignificant? And by what standard do you base this?

 

[iceburg]

What do you consider statistically insignificant? And by what standard do you base this?

In this context, defining a player as a bust for example, it's hard to say what parameters would give p less than .05 , especially at a young age.

 

[F A N]

Now I’m as glad as anyone that he’s shown as well as he has this year but any criticism or loss of faith that went his way last year was entirely rational and deserved. Now maybe it wasn’t generous or kind to do so - you seem to have more “faith” that things would work out - but I don’t blame anyone for their harsh opinions after last year.

I agree with this. I don't blame anyone for their harsh opinions either. I myself had lowered my expectations of Virtanen prior to his performance this season. But the fact is it's too early to tell.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I agree with this. I don't blame anyone for their harsh opinions either. I myself had lowered my expectations of Virtanen prior to his performance this season. But the fact is it's too early to tell.

It's risky business pronouncing players busts before they're even old enough to order a beer in a restaurant down in Utica. The Canucks didn't do Jake any favors by pushing him into the lineup before he was ready. And it is wrong to call a player a bust if he turns out not to be a bust. Obviously.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves here.

Virtanen's not far removed from the AHL. Sure, he's off to a good start, but there's still a long season ahead and he needs to keep improving.

The ceiling for Virtanen is high, but comparing him to Jamie Benn at this point is a little silly considering that Jamie is an art ross winner and hart finalist.

Jamie Ben TYPE player not saying he will be that good. He might but it's not as likely. If he can be impactful every shift in 1 way or another which is very possible that's better than most NHL'ers

 

[Throwback]

At this point I hope that he can become something like Raffi Torres in his prime. But it ain't looking likely. Probably more of something like Steve Bernier if he continues to improve his defensive game.

 

[DL44]

At this point I hope that he can become something like Raffi Torres in his prime. But it ain't looking likely. Probably more of something like Steve Bernier if he continues to improve his defensive game.

I think his play THIS YEAR as a 21 yr old looks likely he'll easily at min be a 20-20 player...

His tools already make him an effective defensive player. Great with his disruptive stick and backcheck.

Havent had a great sample size of his half court D... which is a great thing.. since if your showing off your half court D, it means your line is pinned.

I think by the end of this season a lot of people will be able to let go of their Virtanen anxiety and apprehension ..

 

[Nomobo]

At this point I hope that he can become something like Raffi Torres in his prime. But it ain't looking likely. Probably more of something like Steve Bernier if he continues to improve his defensive game.

Raffi Torres was a Canuck killer in his prime, used to dread playing the Oilers because chances were that he'd lay someone out or get a big goal. If Virtanen could become that player, it would be huge.

 

[Throwback]

I think his play THIS YEAR as a 21 yr old looks likely he'll easily at min be a 20-20 player...

His tools already make him an effective defensive player. Great with his disruptive stick and backcheck.

Havent had a great sample size of his half court D... which is a great thing.. since if your showing off your half court D, it means your line is pinned.

I think by the end of this season a lot of people will be able to let go of their Virtanen anxiety and apprehension ..

Yeah, by the end of the season we'll see if he can show consistency, because that's his biggest rub at the moment. We all see what he can do, it's a matter of not disappearing for weeks at a time. That being said, you could say that about a good amount of NHLers.

 

[DL44]

Yeah, by the end of the season we'll see if he can show consistency, because that's his biggest rub at the moment. We all see what he can do, it's a matter of not disappearing for weeks at a time. That being said, you could say that about a good amount of NHLers.

I think thats part of my optimism... i dont think Virtanen is the type that will disappear for weeks at a time. scoring rates will flucuate... but he does something almost every game.

i dont think we'll see him completely ghost a series of games like weve seen others do. We will see.

 

[CanaFan]

In this context, defining a player as a bust for example, it's hard to say what parameters would give p less than .05 , especially at a young age.

Well a hockey player isn’t a random event so I don’t think you can apply inferential stats to the analysis.

Look at it this way. We saw 3 years of Virtanen’s play - his D+1 to D+3 - and it was consistently below average. He’s now played 8 good games and 6 good preseason games. If you consider the previous 3 years to be a “insignificant” sample size to judge his play as poor then it stands that he will need to sustain >3 years of good play before we can judge his play as good.

It doesn’t work that way.

 

[iceburg]

Well a hockey player isn’t a random event so I don’t think you can apply inferential stats to the analysis.

Look at it this way. We saw 3 years of Virtanen’s play - his D+1 to D+3 - and it was consistently below average. He’s now played 8 good games and 6 good preseason games. If you consider the previous 3 years to be a “insignificant” sample size to judge his play as poor then it stands that he will need to sustain >3 years of good play before we can judge his play as good.

It doesn’t work that way.

Stats could absolutely be applied. It just gets difficult to find significance when the players are younger and the data set is limited to a small number of players who have a chance. To take an extreme example to make the point, what is the probability of any player who's ever played minor hockey making it to the NHL? That analysis can be done because the dataset is so large and there's one variable. Or, how many 45 year olds make it to the NHL for the first time? That probability can also be analysed.
The problem with a similar analysis being done with the group that Virtanen belongs to is that the dataset is much smaller but the variables are numerous. As such, it is difficult to achieve significance.
As I said before, there's nothing wrong with discussing trends. It's a fun exercise to try to project success of prospects. The problem comes when the language changes from "he's trending towards being a bust" to "he is a bust".

 

[DL44]

Well a hockey player isn’t a random event so I don’t think you can apply inferential stats to the analysis.

Look at it this way. We saw 3 years of Virtanen’s play - his D+1 to D+3 - and it was consistently below average. He’s now played 8 good games and 6 good preseason games. If you consider the previous 3 years to be a “insignificant” sample size to judge his play as poor then it stands that he will need to sustain >3 years of good play before we can judge his play as good.

It doesn’t work that way.

Nor is it as simple as saying he was consistently below average for 3 yrs.

There was a context to those seasons.

Ignore those.. and it was easy to
Understanding context.. and you easily remain optimistic.


People gloss over ignore what he did in his run of games as a rookie post World Jr's... That was a significant showcase as a 19 yr old of his skills. That run stuck with me seeding the optimism of what he could be with consistency, development and time.
He just happened to show up out of shape and get injured the following fall... wiping that outta memory for all..

 

[rune74]

At the end of the day if he can continue the route he is taking now, there is good reason for optimism. He is 21 years old, not 23 and showing up with some good play. 14 games where he has been at least NHL quality and some where he was one of the better players on the ice for the team is very good in my mind.

I look at last year as a write off, a broken year of what our old coach did to him and what he did to himself. Coming into camp out of shape is on him, which he clearly paid for all year as he seemed to not get to where he needed to be until near the end.

We are starting to see the coach giving him more of a leash, making him earn his time. This is a good thing.

 

[CanaFan]

Stats could absolutely be applied. It just gets difficult to find significance when the players are younger and the data set is limited to a small number of players who have a chance. To take an extreme example to make the point, what is the probability of any player who's ever played minor hockey making it to the NHL? That analysis can be done because the dataset is so large and there's one variable. Or, how many 45 year olds make it to the NHL for the first time? That probability can also be analysed.
The problem with a similar analysis being done with the group that Virtanen belongs to is that the dataset is much smaller but the variables are numerous. As such, it is difficult to achieve significance.
As I said before, there's nothing wrong with discussing trends. It's a fun exercise to try to project success of prospects. The problem comes when the language changes from "he's trending towards being a bust" to "he is a bust".

I don't think you can apply stats in the sense of determining a sig value for some measure. The requirements for those tests such as independent observations would not be met when basing it on instances of a single players play. Jake's play in one game absolutely influences his play in another game.

Besides we are really talking about qualitative viewings of this player. How he looked when we watched him, the boxscore numbers he put up, etc. Those have no requirements to have a large sample size. Realistically players play at their given level over a run of 10-20 games most of the time. Of course there is game-to-game variability (a good player can have a bad game and a bad player can have a good game) but over the course of say 20 games, that player generally will play at their "true" level outside of confounding factors like injuries, etc.

So in the case of Jake, we have 3 seasons of viewings in which he was - in general - not very good (qualitatively). Yes he had a run of games where he had good possession metrics after the WJC but it didn't translate into strong production. Now this is perhaps where you and I differ. I don't view possession as an end unto itself, but as a means to an end (scoring). If his possession metrics (which are actually just shot differentials while he is on the ice) led to good production, I'd agree he was good in his rookie season. But in the end 7 goals in 57 games really isn't "good". I agree his overall play had some good elements, but it still wasn't what I would consider a strong rookie season. Then of course he follows that up with a terrible camp and 10 NHL games before being assigned to the AHL where he was essentially a rehabilitation project. And his production continued to be very poor.

As for the difference between trends (he's looking like a bust) and outcomes (he IS a bust), I agree the difference exists and the more reasonable viewpoint would have been to say he's trending toward being a bust, but the difference is small as in hockey long-run trends begin to merge into outcomes at some point. Maybe 3 years post-draft was too soon but it probably wasn't far off. And even now we don't know those predictions are wrong. Again if you feel that the previous sample sizes were too small to judge him as a "bust" then it is FAR too soon (8 games and preseason) to judge him a "success" either.

I choose to view him with hope that he can become some type of effective scorer at the NHL level (not just a hitter or a guy who skates the puck into the zone for his linemates) but he has to overcome a long trail of poor play first. You may think that's unfair, but that's just how pro sports works. Praise comes through performance, not by merely "being".

 

[CanaFan]

Nor is it as simple as saying he was consistently below average for 3 yrs.

There was a context to those seasons.

Ignore those.. and it was easy to
Understanding context.. and you easily remain optimistic.


People gloss over ignore what he did in his run of games as a rookie post World Jr's... That was a significant showcase as a 19 yr old of his skills. That run stuck with me seeding the optimism of what he could be with consistency, development and time.
He just happened to show up out of shape and get injured the following fall... wiping that outta memory for all..

All players perform within context. Unless the context was something that was outside of Jake's control that negatively impacted his ability to perform to his "true" level, I don't think it much matters.

 

[DL44]

All players perform within context. Unless the context was something that was outside of Jake's control that negatively impacted his ability to perform to his "true" level, I don't think it much matters.

Nor was his D+2 season 'consistently below average.'

 

[CanaFan]

Nor was his D+2 season 'consistently below average.'

Depends on what you define as ‘average’ for a 6th overall pick.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Remember when our Utica friends kept saying " ignore the stats, Virtaben is trying to rebuild his confidence and learning how to be a pro" last season?
Funny how most posters never listen and just simply wrote him off

 

[krutovsdonut]

if you were shown tape and asked to view virtanen over the course of of a full season two years ago, to virtanen last fall, to virtanen this fall, and asked to put them in order, you would assume last year was his first year cup of coffee and he would currently be looking great picking up from the second half of his first season.

so where you are on virtanen all depends on what you do with the fact he had his first two seasons out of order.

i think people overlook the possibility he is a time traveler who made a minor mistake inputting some numbers.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

I'm curious to see how his TOI progresses more than anything. I'll be real happy if by the 20 game mark he's consistently at/over 15 mpg.

 

[VanJack]

The standard complaint from the Canuck faithful was that Virtanen could skate and hit, but had 'zero' in the way of hockey sense.....but the goal he scored in Minny gives lie to that.....was looking for the pass all the way and when it wasn't there he just pulled the trigger....if you have 'zero hockey sense' you're not going to survive very long with the Twins.

 

[iceburg]

I don't think you can apply stats in the sense of determining a sig value for some measure. The requirements for those tests such as independent observations would not be met when basing it on instances of a single players play. Jake's play in one game absolutely influences his play in another game.

Besides we are really talking about qualitative viewings of this player. How he looked when we watched him, the boxscore numbers he put up, etc. Those have no requirements to have a large sample size. Realistically players play at their given level over a run of 10-20 games most of the time. Of course there is game-to-game variability (a good player can have a bad game and a bad player can have a good game) but over the course of say 20 games, that player generally will play at their "true" level outside of confounding factors like injuries, etc.

So in the case of Jake, we have 3 seasons of viewings in which he was - in general - not very good (qualitatively). Yes he had a run of games where he had good possession metrics after the WJC but it didn't translate into strong production. Now this is perhaps where you and I differ. I don't view possession as an end unto itself, but as a means to an end (scoring). If his possession metrics (which are actually just shot differentials while he is on the ice) led to good production, I'd agree he was good in his rookie season. But in the end 7 goals in 57 games really isn't "good". I agree his overall play had some good elements, but it still wasn't what I would consider a strong rookie season. Then of course he follows that up with a terrible camp and 10 NHL games before being assigned to the AHL where he was essentially a rehabilitation project. And his production continued to be very poor.

As for the difference between trends (he's looking like a bust) and outcomes (he IS a bust), I agree the difference exists and the more reasonable viewpoint would have been to say he's trending toward being a bust, but the difference is small as in hockey long-run trends begin to merge into outcomes at some point. Maybe 3 years post-draft was too soon but it probably wasn't far off. And even now we don't know those predictions are wrong. Again if you feel that the previous sample sizes were too small to judge him as a "bust" then it is FAR too soon (8 games and preseason) to judge him a "success" either.

I choose to view him with hope that he can become some type of effective scorer at the NHL level (not just a hitter or a guy who skates the puck into the zone for his linemates) but he has to overcome a long trail of poor play first. You may think that's unfair, but that's just how pro sports works. Praise comes through performance, not by merely "being".

That's a lot to digest...(cudos for enduring through the typing. This new website lags so much it must have taken forever!)

Stats are used to predict the probability of an outcome based on available data. They can be very inconvenient and are often ignored when they don't support the preferred outcome. Just sayin...

Anyway, we're left with an argument that is based on trends. You're absolutely right the non-significant trends can turn into statistically significant result over time. If a player plays in the minors for 7 years and never gets an NHL game, I would expect that the probability of him never making it is >95%.

As for Virtanen, he still does have a lot to prove. And his struggles in his years since being drafted means that he has all but lost the "benefit of the doubt" factor. Most high end draft picks get ample opportunity to prove they are capable of playing. Virtanen has used a lot of his wiggle room. He needs to perform this year or really fall into dangerous territory. Success comes when ability meets opportunity. Prospects who don't make it quickly get pushed by younger players who are more ready. Teams will necessarily give the opportunities to the players that are more ready and the struggling prospect may never get the chance to show his ability when he is ready.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i'm pleased and optimistic about virtanen's play so far this year.

but there's this one thing that nags at me, which is that he's a former high pick who had flatlined (in fact, got worse) post-draft and didn't look like he would pan out as a longterm piece, and 3+ years after he was drafted he starts to turn it around a bit. i've seen that play before, maybe we should try to run it: wait for the young player to play himself back to the point where if you squint you can just about almost see the guy who was forecasted pre-draft and then *boom* trade him to jim benning for a draft pick.

 

[CanaFan]

That's a lot to digest...(cudos for enduring through the typing. This new website lags so much it must have taken forever!)

Ya its bad on my phone but fine when I switch to my laptop (FF browser). Do it for longer posts like that one

Stats are used to predict the probability of an outcome based on available data. They can be very inconvenient and are often ignored when they don't support the preferred outcome. Just sayin...

They are but only when applied to a validated model. I haven't seen one other than the Player Cohort stuff that CanucksArmy uses and that is always restricted to a players' pre-NHL seasons. Which if you looked at Jakes D+1 (WHL) or D+3 (AHL) would have strongly predicted a bust or at best a low impact NHLer. The thing I see around here a lot is the phrase "small sample size" without any real context for what they are talking about. In inferential stats, anything over a sample of 30 is considered "adequte" for normality assumptions and beyond that it simply improves the power of your tests. You don't need hundreds and hundreds of data points to have predictive data. And in the context of what we were talking about (Jake's play through 3 years) I don't recall any specific statistics, models, or tests being discussed which makes terms like "statistically insignificant sample" rather meaningless. I mean it sounds nice, but it doesn't have any objective meaning without describing the tests or models being used. For basic eye tests and player production I think the threshhold for adequacy is certainly less than a full season.

Anyway, we're left with an argument that is based on trends. You're absolutely right the non-significant trends can turn into statistically significant result over time. If a player plays in the minors for 7 years and never gets an NHL game, I would expect that the probability of him never making it is >95%.

We are on the same page here except I find your timelines far too generous. A player with "7 years in the minors" would put them at age 27 if they are drafted out of the CHL (can't play AHL until 20) or age 25 if College or Euro. I would say there isn't more than a 1% chance they will ever be an impact NHLer if they haven't cracked the NHL by then (the odd Tim Thomas outlier would be the exception). For your 95% number I'even back that down to simply 5 years post-draft if they haven't cracked an NHL roster, like Pouliot. Impact players don't take 5-7 years to make the transition to NHL in the majority of cases and when they do fans are being entirely reasonable to play the odds and be "down" on them.

As for Virtanen, he still does have a lot to prove. And his struggles in his years since being drafted means that he has all but lost the "benefit of the doubt" factor. Most high end draft picks get ample opportunity to prove they are capable of playing. Virtanen has used a lot of his wiggle room. He needs to perform this year or really fall into dangerous territory. Success comes when ability meets opportunity. Prospects who don't make it quickly get pushed by younger players who are more ready. Teams will necessarily give the opportunities to the players that are more ready and the struggling prospect may never get the chance to show his ability when he is ready.

Agree. And keep in mind I am certainly pulling for him as I initially thought he had good upside based on his physical tools and volume-shooting style. Even last game while I wanted to see the team lose to Minny, I was actually happy to see him get the goal (I would have felt much different had it been Dorsett or Sutter). So I'm certainly not rooting against him here. I just feel it's unfair to criticize fans for being rational about his poor trajectory these past 3 years. What he was showing was the path of a bust and his turnaround, while positive, is quite unusual I think.