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

[LickTheEnvelope]

Nothing impressive yet but Virtanen has tools and his drive seems better than last year.

I'd still rather have the 60 pt/year guys taken right after him... but oh well.

Getting more annoyed about taking Juolevi over Sergachev now.

 

[Icebreakers]

Sergachev is playing with a ridiculous Tampa team right now. He had a very mediocre draft plus 1 season. If we had Sergachev Im sure he wouldn't seem nearly as good. It's mostly tkachuk that still haunts me.

 

[Canucks1096]

He shot the puck directly into the dman's shinpads. 99% of the time the puck would deflect into the corner or end up in the other team's possession. It was a lucky play.

Jake is trying really hard and skating a lot. He's no longer the complete disaster he was 12 months ago. But he's still headed for a career as a bottom-6 grinder, at best. The talent is not there.

I agree 110%. You are 110% bang on

 

[Canucks1096]

On the other hand, he could be tracking the same way as Shane Doan, another high WHL draft pick who got off to a slow start....couldn't crack 10 goals in his first few years in the league but then morphed into a 25-35 goal scorer and eventually all-world for the Coyotes....could happen.

Sure

But when Doan was eligible to play in the AHL. He put up a ppg. Virtanen is not even skill enough to put points in the AHL. How do you expect him to put up points in the nhl. Virtanen is just not skill enough to be a legit top 6 forward. He has skating but not the hands or the hockey sense.

Even Zack Kassian has a lot more skill than Virtanen and He is 3rd liner

 

[F A N]

Sure

But when Doan was eligible to play in the AHL. He put up a ppg. Virtanen is not even skill enough to put points in the AHL. How do you expect him to put up points in the nhl. Virtanen is just not skill enough to be a legit top 6 forward. He has skating but not the hands or the hockey sense.

Even Zack Kassian has a lot more skill than Virtanen and He is 3rd liner

What's skill? Ability to dangle the puck? Milan Lucic spent most of his career as a 1st line winger and he's hardly the most skilled. Virtanen's path to success is size, speed, physicality, and shot.

 

[Mudshark50]

Virtanen looked like he's continuing to figure out the defensive side of the game last night. Was peeling off and using his speed to cover the Sedin's arses last night. Didn't do it consistently, but that's not unusual for a young player so I think it was a net positive.

You can bemoan who you would have liked to pick in that draft all you want, but the team can still get something out of this kid who has good wheels, size and a decent shot.

 

[VancouverJagger]

So when do all of the so-called Canucks fans who were purporting that Jake was a complete bust man up and admit that they may have jumped the gun? Hopefully his development will at least give OJ a bit more time before they start screaming what an EFF up that pick was.

Calm down peoples......everything
IS
GOING
TO
BE
OK..........

 

[CanaFan]

So when do all of the so-called Canucks fans who were purporting that Jake was a complete bust man up and admit that they may have jumped the gun? Hopefully his development will at least give OJ a bit more time before they start screaming what an EFF up that pick was.

Calm down peoples......everything
IS
GOING
TO
BE
OK..........

Nope. Using historic precedent to realize a guy struggling to score in the AHL at age 20 is highly unlikely to become a top 6 scorer at the NHL is an entirely rarional position to take. Even now it isn’t clear he is going to be an NHL scorer, despite the huge improvements to his game. You might wanna check out some of the guys who ARE top 6 scorers to see what good production actually looks like.

Having doubts when things are tracking poorly is a reasonable thing to do. Blindly believing things will work out in the end is for children and church ladies. Even if it does work out every once in a while.

 

[Ryp37]

I don't even think he's playing that good to warrant the responses in here, compared to last year yeah sure it's night and day but the responses in here are over the top

 

[iceburg]

Nope. Using historic precedent to realize a guy struggling to score in the AHL at age 20 is highly unlikely to become a top 6 scorer at the NHL is an entirely rarional position to take. Even now it isn’t clear he is going to be an NHL scorer, despite the huge improvements to his game. You might wanna check out some of the guys who ARE top 6 scorers to see what good production actually looks like.

Having doubts when things are tracking poorly is a reasonable thing to do. Blindly believing things will work out in the end is for children and church ladies. Even if it does work out every once in a while.

There is still talking without a lot of listening around here. The poster said those who said "Jake was a complete bust" should admit they jumped the gun. You're saying it was appropriate to criticize. There is a world where both of you are correct. One just has to listen more carefully...

 

[CanaFan]

There is still talking without a lot of listening around here. The poster said those who said "Jake was a complete bust" should admit they jumped the gun. You're saying it was appropriate to criticize. There is a world where both of you are correct. One just has to listen more carefully...

Problem is people use the term “bust” differently. Some people use it for players who don’t play at all in the NHL, others use it to describe a player who fails to reach their draft production. Take Jordan Schroeder for example. Is he a bust? Many people would say yes and yet he’s played 144 NHL games.

With Jake I don’t think anyone thought he wouldn’t play at all in the NHL, even at his worst. The reference to a “bust” was in regards to his offensive production. And that was a legit concern and, tbh, still is despite his improved showings.

Now I can’t speak for everyone who used the term “bust” but you might want to consider what was meant by it rather than assume it meant “non NHLer”.

 

[iceburg]

Problem is people use the term “bust” differently. Some people use it for players who don’t play at all in the NHL, others use it to describe a player who fails to reach their draft production. Take Jordan Schroeder for example. Is he a bust? Many people would say yes and yet he’s played 144 NHL games.

With Jake I don’t think anyone thought he wouldn’t play at all in the NHL, even at his worst. The reference to a “bust” was in regards to his offensive production. And that was a legit concern and, tbh, still is despite his improved showings.

Now I can’t speak for everyone who used the term “bust” but you might want to consider what was meant by it rather than assume it meant “non NHLer”.

Well the poster did use the qualifier "complete" bust.
But, anyway, yes, I think you're right that some of the disagreements arise from using a different definition of bust. I think what I, and other posters, get frustrated by is when there is no recognition of any of the positives. It's not just Virtanen. Comments about Juolevi are trending that way because he hasn't yet shown he's NHL ready. IMO It's just hyperbole to use the word "bust" for players that have not met expectations but are still young and have time to develop. Clearly it's a sliding scale. Jordan Schroeder is a great example inflated expectations leading to disappointment. I was never that impressed with him on the US teams but he was hyped as being the next Phil Kessel. Getting drafted 22 overall should have been an indicator but it didn't register for some.

 

[CanaFan]

Well the poster did use the qualifier "complete" bust.
But, anyway, yes, I think you're right that some of the disagreements arise from using a different definition of bust. I think what I, and other posters, get frustrated by is when there is no recognition of any of the positives. It's not just Virtanen. Comments about Juolevi are trending that way because he hasn't yet shown he's NHL ready. IMO It's just hyperbole to use the word "bust" for players that have not met expectations but are still young and have time to develop. Clearly it's a sliding scale. Jordan Schroeder is a great example inflated expectations leading to disappointment. I was never that impressed with him on the US teams but he was hyped as being the next Phil Kessel. Getting drafted 22 overall should have been an indicator but it didn't register for some.

Ya I noticed you said *complete* bust but I don’t think that was used often in the Virtanen discussion, maybe by one or two hyperbolic posters. And in that case you would be right to criticize their assessment, but I don’t think that’s what the poster I was replying to meant.

It’s actually less an issue with Juolevi. I don’t recall anyone who said he won’t play in the NHL eventually, the main concern is whether he’ll develop into a top pair D or not, which was the justification for passing on Tkachuk, Keller, Sergachev, etc.

But yes, anyone saying these players are so bad they’ll never play in the NHL is being hyperbolic and can be rightly criticized. But just being down on either players for progressing worse than other players taken in that range seems reasonable to me.

 

[Pavel96]

Nope. Using historic precedent to realize a guy struggling to score in the AHL at age 20 is highly unlikely to become a top 6 scorer at the NHL is an entirely rarional position to take. Even now it isn’t clear he is going to be an NHL scorer, despite the huge improvements to his game. You might wanna check out some of the guys who ARE top 6 scorers to see what good production actually looks like.

Having doubts when things are tracking poorly is a reasonable thing to do. Blindly believing things will work out in the end is for children and church ladies. Even if it does work out every once in a while.

No! Just get a retro jersey and repeat "everything is good everything is good" or something else that's just positive. And then just sit back and be patient - you are just a fan. You need to just keep waiting and waiting until the prospect is too old to care about anymore - because by then we will have newer prospects to think about.

You literally can't see into the future and be 100% sure of something - and you can't use his play in the last few years to predict his future performance at all. (because judgments like that are only valid when used to draft a player when they are younger - as they get older and have more opportunity you can not use that as a more accurate reference for your assessment of the player) - that's called being negative.

 

[WTG]

Looking through the data while having my morning coffee I am really surprised just how good of a possession forward Virtanen is. Plus in most statistics he comes out looking fantastic. I've said that he should be used in a bigger defensive role, because personally, I think he's fantastic defensively. Well the data backs this up.

When Virtanen is on the ice the canucks control 59.09% scoring chances for. He's also limiting scoring chances against, he's the 2nd best scoring chances against per 60 with 20.8. That's only worse then Daniel Sedin, and as we know, the sedins are playing in really controlled situations.

Virtanen's CA/60 is also 49.3 which ranks just below the sedins, again insulated. The thing that he can work on is his FA/60 which is mid range at 42.37.


I think it's about time Green gives Virtanen an expanded defensive role, and some PP/PK time. Without it I think we might potentially miss out on developing his defensive talents.

 

[Melvin]

Looking through the data while having my morning coffee I am really surprised just how good of a possession forward Virtanen is. Plus in most statistics he comes out looking fantastic. I've said that he should be used in a bigger defensive role, because personally, I think he's fantastic defensively. Well the data backs this up.

When Virtanen is on the ice the canucks control 59.09% scoring chances for. He's also limiting scoring chances against, he's the 2nd best scoring chances against per 60 with 20.8. That's only worse then Daniel Sedin, and as we know, the sedins are playing in really controlled situations.

Virtanen's CA/60 is also 49.3 which ranks just below the sedins, again insulated. The thing that he can work on is his FA/60 which is mid range at 42.37.


I think it's about time Green gives Virtanen an expanded defensive role, and some PP/PK time. Without it I think we might potentially miss out on developing his defensive talents.

You cannot draw these conclusions from 10 games of data at low ice time.

 

[WTG]

You cannot draw these conclusions from 10 games of data at low ice time.

That he's played well? That he deserves a expanded role to develop his defensive talents?

He hasn't played a lot of minutes. But in those minutes he has been a good possession forward. Now by saying that, understand I'm not saying he IS a definitive good possession forward. Just that he has had success and he deserves more minutes and let's see what more he can do.

We only have limited data to evaluate Virtanen, but so far he's ticked the right boxes. And i think that's a good thing.

 

[Melvin]

That he's played well? That he deserves a expanded role to develop his defensive talents?

He hasn't played a lot of minutes. But in those minutes he has been a good possession forward. Now by saying that, understand I'm not saying he IS a definitive good possession forward. Just that he has had success and he deserves more minutes and let's see what more he can do.

That is not really how it works though. None of those metrics measure Jake's play directly. You are inferring his play based on a statistic that measures things in a much broader fashion. It is like judging a goalie's performance based only on his GAA, except even worse. Corsi is way, way, way too heavy-handed and noisy of a metric to glean anything useful from it in 100 minutes of play, especially if you are not controlling for any of the known biases. You cannot conclude that he "has been a good possession forward," only that he has witnessed good possession results in terms of the overall team, which is a much different thing.

As for it being "all that we have," that may be true but data does not become more meaningful as a percentage of its relative scarcity.

Unadjusted corsi data in this small of a sample is actually less than useless, because of its illusion of usefulness.

 

[VancouverJagger]

I think a lot of credit for JV's "resurgence" has to be given to Green. While I was advocating for more ice time for him earlier this year Green is really limiting his ice time allowing him to place a premium of importance on each and every shift. When he gets something he gets more of an expanded role. Really happy with his improvements.

Will be interesting to see what his ceiling is the next couple of years. From a slightly more optimistic standpoint I would say 30 goals and 55-60 points. A really useful second line player (this is if he continues to progress).

 

[WTG]

That is not really how it works though. None of those metrics measure Jake's play directly. You are inferring his play based on a statistic that measures things in a much broader fashion. It is like judging a goalie's performance based only on his GAA, except even worse. Corsi is way, way, way too heavy-handed and noisy of a metric to glean anything useful from it in 100 minutes of play, especially if you are not controlling for any of the known biases. You cannot conclude that he "has been a good possession forward," only that he has witnessed good possession results in terms of the overall team, which is a much different thing.

As for it being "all that we have," that may be true but data does not become more meaningful as a percentage of its relative scarcity.

Disagree, we have a data pool right now. It's not enough to make a definitive statement on whether or not Virtanen will probably continue to be a good possession, however the data we do have is promising. That's the important point here.

Virtanen is punching well above average compared to his team in possession metrics, and in scoring chances metrics. His individual CF60 is 2nd highest only beaten by Brock, and his individual scoring chances for/60 is 3rd highest only behind Brock and Daniel.

His shots/60 on the ice have been 12.33 2nd highest on the team only behind Daniel again.


There's enough data here to suggest, "Hey, this kid deserves a more in depth look because the data we have is promising."

 

[Melvin]

Disagree, we have a data pool right now. It's not enough to make a definitive statement on whether or not Virtanen will probably continue to be a good possession, however the data we do have is promising. That's the important point here.

I want you to think really hard about what this means, and most importantly what it implies about the data.

Virtanen is punching well above average compared to his team in possession metrics, and in scoring chances metrics. His individual CF60 is 2nd highest only beaten by Brock, and his individual scoring chances for/60 is 3rd highest only behind Brock and Daniel.

His shots/60 on the ice have been 12.33 2nd highest on the team only behind Daniel again.

There's enough data here to suggest, "Hey, this kid deserves a more in depth look because the data we have is promising."

I disagree. Meaningless is meaningless. Random numbers do not become "promising" when they paint a positive picture; they are still just random numbers. Neither does Corsi become meaningful just because it is "promising."

Jake Virtanen has played 54 minutes at 5v5 when the score is within 1 goal. This is just a pitifiully small sample of data and the Corsi events which occurred during those 54 minutes cannot be used to draw meaningful conclusions about how well Jake has played. The same goes for the other top "performers" heretofore in this metric: Derrick Pouliot and the Sedins.

 

[WTG]

I want you to think really hard about what this means, and most importantly what it implies about the data.



I disagree. Meaningless is meaningless. Random numbers do not become "promising" when they paint a positive picture; they are still just random numbers.

If you think that data is random, you think all data is random.

It's not. You are either suggesting that this data is just a random statistical fluctuations. Which means that a player is overpreforming like for example Dorsett, who is overpreforming. However, you do not have enough data either to come to that conclusion. You are now guessing that this data is meaningless. With Dorsett you are able to make that assessment because he has a lot of data showing that this level of play isn't sustainable or the usual for Dorsett. It is statistically improbable for Dorsett to keep playing at this level, based on the data we have on this player over the years. However, with Virtanen we cannot make that assessment because there is not enough data collected on Virtanen. Meaning that we do not know if this data is just Virtanen playing at a much higher then normal level, or playing at a regular level. We do not know.

You saying that this data is meaningless, suggest you know that answer of whether or not "Virtanen is punching above his weight" when we don't.



When Virtanen has a good statistical game it is not meaningless data. Over the 9 games he's played, he's played statistically well. That's something we can definitively say.

 

[Melvin]

If you think that data is random, you think all data is random.

I did not say all data is random. I was using an extreme example of obviously meaningless data (random numbers,) to illustrate a point that if it is meaningless it cannot also be promising.

It's not. You are either suggesting that this data is just a random statistical fluctuations. Which means that a player is overpreforming like for example Dorsett, who is overpreforming. However, you do not have enough data either to come to that conclusion. You are now guessing that this data is meaningless. With Dorsett you are able to make that assessment because he has a lot of data showing that this level of play isn't sustainable or the usual for Dorsett. It is statistically improbable for Dorsett to keep playing at this level, based on the data we have on this player over the years. However, with Virtanen we cannot make that assessment because there is not enough data collected on Virtanen. Meaning that we do not know if this data is just Virtanen playing at a much higher then normal level, or playing at a regular level. We do not know

It is not a good analog. I am not suggesting that Jake is over-performing. I am suggesting that the data you have does not tell you anything about his performance.

When Virtanen has a good statistical game it is not meaningless data. Over the 9 games he's played, he's played statistically well. That's something we can definitively say.

No, that is not how it works. Again, the data is not measuring how well he plays or does not play.

Measurements contain error. You need time for the errors to be sifted out so that you can draw something meaningful from the measurements. It would be irresponsible to suggest that our top performers so far this year have been Jake Virtanen, Derrick Pouliot and the Sedin twins. It is the misguided attempt to draw too firm of a conclusion from too scarce and noisy data that gets the analytics laughed out of the room at times.

You seem to understand sustainability but not the underpinnings that drive the lack of sustainability in most data.

 

[WTG]

Alright, thinking about it, maybe you can say using rates is highly impractical especially when using such a low sample rate. Okay, that's fine, perfectly reasonable.

Virtanen 5on5:
16 shots - 4th on the team
26 individual corsi - 3rd on the team
14 individual scoring chance for - T-3rd-5th
7 individual high danger corsi for - T4th-5th
4 rebounds created - 1st

This is all with about 15-25 minutes less 5on5 ice time then other players. That's promising data.

 

[WTG]

I did not say all data is random. I was using an extreme example of obviously meaningless data (random numbers,) to illustrate a point that if it is meaningless it cannot also be promising.

It is not a good analog. I am not suggesting that Jake is over-performing. I am suggesting that the data you have does not tell you anything about his performance.

No, that is not how it works. Again, the data is not measuring how well he plays or does not play.

Measurements contain error. You need time for the errors to be sifted out so that you can draw something meaningful from the measurements. It would be irresponsible to suggest that our top performers so far this year have been Jake Virtanen, Derrick Pouliot and the Sedin twins. It is the misguided attempt to draw too firm of a conclusion from too scarce and noisy data that gets the analytics laughed out of the room at times.

Who decides what is meaningful data and what isn't? All data is meaningful, even if some of it ends up being noise rather then useful data. You are just shoving data you don't like to the sidelines because you do not like the conclusions it draws.

The reason you want more data is because it paints a clearer picture and it can show trends and eliminate noise. Saying that small sub-sects of data is meaningless/irrelevant is just false. Saying that in October Virtanen played well. Is the exact same as saying in October Virtanen was statistically doing very well. I'm doing a micro evaluation of the data to draw a conclusion that within that sub-sect of data a player has preformed well. Again, the reason you'd want more data is to predict trends and to eliminate noise. Now Virtanen's October might be considered against his trend and just be considered noise. But we do not know that, so eliminating it as somehow being useless is not accurate.

Here is the reality. Virtanen's CURRENT statistics show that he has preformed well in the previous 9 games. However, we do not have enough data to determine that this is a anomaly or just a trend. To determine this we need more data.

I'm saying, because Virtanen is statistically doing well. He deserves a bigger role. It's a simple evaluation.