World Juniors Finals Prediction

[BowDownToVasilevskiy]

3-1 Finland

Finland goals from Tolvanen, Heponiemi and Kakko

USA goal from Poehling

 

[Monaakko]

Umm...what?

Jokiharju's been very average. Someone like Vaakanainen or Brannstrom would be a much better choice here.

I'd have to disagree. Jokiharju has been great at controlling the flow of the game and has managed to put up some points too. Vaakanainen has been great too, but I still feel Jokiharju has been better. The GMG might change the dynamics though.

Regarding Brännström, no way. His team didn't make the medal round, and while he was great on the PP, he was very pedestrian 5v5. Of the 5 even strength goals against for Sweden he was on the ice for 4 of them and was one of only 2 Swedish players with a negative +/-.

 

[theslatcher]

I'd have to disagree. Jokiharju has been great at controlling the flow of the game and has managed to put up some points too. Vaakanainen has been great too, but I still feel Jokiharju has been better. The GMG might change the dynamics though.

Regarding Brännström, no way. His team didn't make the medal round, and while he was great on the PP, he was very pedestrian 5v5. Of the 5 even strength goals against for Sweden he was on the ice for 4 of them and was one of only 2 Swedish players with a negative +/-.

Sounds like you didn't watch him, then. And pretty useless stats you've got there.

 

[Monaakko]

Sounds like you didn't watch him, then. And pretty useless stats you've got there.

I did watch him, great with the puck, poor without it. He was directly responsible for 2 of the 4 goals I mentioned. The stats line up with what I saw.

Edit: I should probably correct myself a bit here. He was great when Sweden had the puck not just him (i.e. good puck support too). He was just rather weak in the corners as well as front of the net and allowed opposing forwards to drive there with ease, fairly good positioning though.

 

[blindpass]

Finland 3 - US 2

 

[CheldishGamibno]

Finland 3 - USA 2
Russia 5 - Swiss 1

Well, I was pretty close I must say.

 

[Wings4Life]

I'd have to disagree. Jokiharju has been great at controlling the flow of the game and has managed to put up some points too. Vaakanainen has been great too, but I still feel Jokiharju has been better. The GMG might change the dynamics though.

Regarding Brännström, no way. His team didn't make the medal round, and while he was great on the PP, he was very pedestrian 5v5. Of the 5 even strength goals against for Sweden he was on the ice for 4 of them and was one of only 2 Swedish players with a negative +/-.

Brannstrom scored at a higher clip than Jokiharju, and Brannstrom was voted to the WJC tournament Allstar team, Jokiharju was not. Brannstrom was objectively better and it really showed when they played head-to-head.

 

[Monaakko]

1) Brannstrom scored at a higher clip than Jokiharju, and 2) Brannstrom was voted to the WJC tournament Allstar team, Jokiharju was not. 3) Brannstrom was objectively better and 4) it really showed when they played head-to-head.

1) He scored 4+0 in 5 games (3 PP Goals) whereas Jokiharju scored 2+3 in 7 games (2 PP Goals). Hardly a significant difference (0.09 PPG over a sample size of 5/7 games). You won't find me arguing that Jokiharju has more offensive talent than Brännström, but as a whole Jokiharju was better in this tournament.

2) And Poehling ( who scored 1 entire point that wasn't either against Kazakhstan or in that furious comeback against Sweden and nothing after the group stage) was voted MVP, So it's not like media people who vote for these are the flawless arbiters of who is better. My point is that he shouldn't have been on the team, there were better options. Granted, the margins behind Romanov were rather slim so it's not like someone was robbed.

3) You cite one objective (scoring pace) and one incredibly subjective fact ("these people think he was better"). Based on the evidence you've presented you are in no position to make the argument that Brännström was objectively better in any other way than that he scored at a higher pace. Other objective facts you could have chosen to include: Brännström failed to lead his team to the medal round, he was the worst +/- player on his own team (with -1) and he was directly involved in plays leading to a comeback from 4-0 in the final 10 minutes of the game against Sweden (on the ice for 3 of those goals against) as well as being directly involved in the plays that eliminated Sweden from the tournament against Switzerland (on the ice for both goals against).

4) He was indeed better in their head-to-head matchup and was rightly chosen as the PotG. That one game also happened to constitute half of his scoring in the tournament, and he was solid on both sides of the puck. Jokiharju on the other hand never had a bad game like Brännström had against Switzerland or when Sweden collapsed in the 3rd against USA and he led his team to gold.

Again this isn't evaluation of who is better as a player or as a prospect, just an evaluation of their performance in the tournament

 

[Wings4Life]

1) He scored 4+0 in 5 games (3 PP Goals) whereas Jokiharju scored 2+3 in 7 games (2 PP Goals). Hardly a significant difference (0.09 PPG over a sample size of 5/7 games). You won't find me arguing that Jokiharju has more offensive talent than Brännström, but as a whole Jokiharju was better in this tournament.

2) And Poehling ( who scored 1 entire point that wasn't either against Kazakhstan or in that furious comeback against Sweden and nothing after the group stage) was voted MVP, So it's not like media people who vote for these are the flawless arbiters of who is better. My point is that he shouldn't have been on the team, there were better options. Granted, the margins behind Romanov were rather slim so it's not like someone was robbed.

3) You cite one objective (scoring pace) and one incredibly subjective fact ("these people think he was better"). Based on the evidence you've presented you are in no position to make the argument that Brännström was objectively better in any other way than that he scored at a higher pace. Other objective facts you could have chosen to include: Brännström failed to lead his team to the medal round, he was the worst +/- player on his own team (with -1) and he was directly involved in plays leading to a comeback from 4-0 in the final 10 minutes of the game against Sweden (on the ice for 3 of those goals against) as well as being directly involved in the plays that eliminated Sweden from the tournament against Switzerland (on the ice for both goals against).

4) He was indeed better in their head-to-head matchup and was rightly chosen as the PotG. That one game also happened to constitute half of his scoring in the tournament, and he was solid on both sides of the puck. Jokiharju on the other hand never had a bad game like Brännström had against Switzerland or when Sweden collapsed in the 3rd against USA and he led his team to gold.

Again this isn't evaluation of who is better as a player or as a prospect, just an evaluation of their performance in the tournament

Quit using team accomplishments to argue individual players, it doesn't work that way. Jokiharju had much more offensive support than Brannstrom did. The Finnish forward core was much stronger, yet Brannstrom outscored Jokiharju anyway. Finland also had better goaltending.

I was at the Switzerland game. There was 1 goal that can be argued that Brannstrom was partially at fault for. The GWG however happened from the other side of the ice. Brannstrom was in good position and had literally nothing to do with that play, so let's not try and use that as a point against his performance.

If you're going to nitpick games, how about the fact that Jokiharju was invisible in all of Finland's big games?

In the four games against Sweden, USA (twice), and Canada, Jokiharju had just one secondary assist, and zero goals. This is from a 19 year old who plays in the NHL and gets top PP time. He sure showed up against Slovakia and Kazakhstan though.

Most people feel Brannstrom had the better tournament than Jokiharju, including the official voters for the WJC All-Star team. Feel free to disagree all you like, you're in the minority though.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Button seemed to think Finland should be thankful to Chicago for letting Jokiharju play.

 

[Monaakko]

1) Quit using team accomplishments to argue individual players, it doesn't work that way. 2) Jokiharju had much more offensive support than Brannstrom did. The Finnish forward core was much stronger, yet 3) Brannstrom outscored Jokiharju anyway. 4) Finland also had better goaltending.

I was at the Switzerland game. 5) There was 1 goal that can be argued that Brannstrom was partially at fault for. The GWG however happened from the other side of the ice. Brannstrom was in good position and had literally nothing to do with that play, so let's not try and use that as a point against his performance.

6) If you're going to nitpick games, 7) how about the fact that Jokiharju was invisible in all of Finland's big games?

8) In the four games against Sweden, USA (twice), and Canada, Jokiharju had just one secondary assist, and zero goals. 9) This is from a 19 year old who plays in the NHL and gets top PP time. He sure showed up against Slovakia and Kazakhstan though.

10) Most people feel Brannstrom had the better tournament than Jokiharju, including the official voters for the WJC All-Star team. Feel free to disagree all you like, you're in the minority though.

1) He was captain of a team that failed to show up against Switzerland. Also, he was personally on the ice for nearly half of that game. I'd say he bears a share of the responsibility for his teams performance.

2) Not really. Finland scored 3,28 goals per game and Sweden scored 3,2. While Finland clearly had the better forwards, they too underperformed compared to expectations.

3) He did not. 5 points > 4 points. Brännström scored more on a per game basis, but with a sample size of 5/7

4) True, but irrelevant. Goaltending was not why Sweden failed.

5) Agreed, 1 goal on him, the other not. Add to this that he failed to show up offensively (considering how you've been using his offence as a point of argument in favour of him), I'd say the assessment that he had a poor game isn't unfair.

6) We're talking about a sample size of 5/7 games. Literally everything we're talking about is nitpicking.

7) Was he? I though he played a steady game throughout the tournament. Not flashy, but solid. Perhaps I'm blinded by a comparison to Honka and Latvala on his own team. As a fan of team Finland I was on the verge of a heart attack any time they were on the ice, whereas with Jokiharju I was quite comfortable.

8) Excluding the Final, Finland scored a grand total of 4 goals in those games (+3 in the final). The offence failed to show up (including from Jokiharju, but I've never argued that his offensive contribution was what made him better). You also fail to mention that when put in the same position (elimination game against Switzerland) Jokiharju scored and Brännström did not. This on top of playing an overall better game. As for that secondary assist you mentioned, it happened to be on the gold medal winning goal, talk about stepping up!

9) They're both 19 and both got PP time (with Jokiharju scoring 2 goals and Brännström 3). That Jokiharju happens to be in the NHL is quite irrelevant in comparing their performances in this tournament.

10) Again, an argument to popularity is pointless unless supported by evidence. Furthermore, I'm not sure that's true. The media people who vote for the all-star team did agree with you, not entirely sure why, though it's the same people, not necessarily the same individual people, but the same type, who couldn't agree on if Ovechkin was a LW or a RW a couple of years back. I felt like he wasn't even the best defensemen on his own team (my pick would have been Sandin, for MVP of Sweden, not the all-star team). Again, slim margins and all that, but if the margins are slim I feel we should defer to the players who led their teams further.