No, you are absolutely wrong and I won't stand for this type of revisionist history. Virtanen didn't deserve to make the NHL and looked completely in over his head during his rookie season save and except for a two week period in the spring. Decent players in the NHL are not poor players in the WJCs - it simply doesn't happen.
Player Discussion Jake "Big Tuna" Virtanen | XVII Nikolaj Who...?
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
- Status
No, you are absolutely wrong and I won't stand for this type of revisionist history. Virtanen didn't deserve to make the NHL and looked completely in over his head during his rookie season save and except for a two week period in the spring. Decent players in the NHL are not poor players in the WJCs - it simply doesn't happen.
We won't have to wait and see how he does to determine whether he has been tracking poorly since being draft to the present time....
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
It has nothing to do with emotions, its just a fact that we don't have to wait and see how he does, moving forward, to evaluate his past development. This isn't rocket science.
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
He’s up after a long downward trend. Where that puts him overall is still unclear. I did think he was very effective in preseason but the reality is he will always be weighed against Nylander and Ehlers. It’s a mixed bag.
Well on one hand there is your opinion, and on the other there is statistical evidence that says something quite different.
As far as WJC performance - there are many players who had outstanding performances at the WJCs who have bombed in the NHL. Nolan Baumgartner, Cody Hodgson, Kimbi Daniels, Stefan Legein, Greg Nemisz, Shawn Belle, ... Virtanen's biggest problem at the WJCs was that, trying to be physically aggressive, he took a couple of bad penalties and inopportune times. This is not actually a tournament that favours physically aggressive players.
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
That was my point - they were. He was saying his rookie season was "an unmitigated disaster".
No matter what Virtanen 'does' or 'doesn't' become, you'd have to say he belongs in the NHL based on his elite-level skating alone....that burst through the neutral zone in game one was a sight to behold. While he may not have the hockey sense to ever be a top-six scoring forward, the guy can flat-out fly out there.....there has to be a fit for him somewhere on your four lines
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,477
- 8,572
More or less, yeah. To me, even last year, he still probably ends up somewhere in the spectrum between a middle-class-man's pre-injuries David Booth, and the frustrating post-injuries David booth.
NO NOT JAKE!
The poster I was replying too was making all kinds of excuses, it was that victim mentality I was referring to.
The sample size is too small to draw meaningful results. Jake was poor in his NHL rookie season and simply didn't deserve to be there. I can't believe we are even having this discussion.
With respect to your WJC comment, your logic is flawed. You assume that because X doesn't necessarily mean Y, the Y doesn't necessarily mean X. Its incredibly rare that "NHL players" are released to the WJC and play as poorly as Virtanen did. Sometimes these players don't make the massive impact that some think (I recall this with RNH), but they certainly don't generally play as poorly as Virtanen did.
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
What was his advance stats for his first year in the NHL? What was his possession numbers like?
Sample size?
He played 55 games. Okay - less than 82 but certain enough to evaluate a season on. His corsi and fenwick numbers were very good, he scored 7 goals and 13 points (on pace for 10 goals and 19 points) while playing only 7 minutes per game and playing with guys like Dorsett and Higgins. Simply stating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it true.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Tv9924
Registered User
His advanced stats for that season were very misleading. Sure, he was good at generating shot attempts and when he was on the ice the Canucks generally out shot their opponents, but the quality of his shots was not good.Sample size?
He was...
1st in Rel CF% with 3.48 ... Hamhuis was 2nd with 3.01
8th in Rel HDCF% (High Danger Chances For) with 2.41 ... Henrik was 1st with 8.27
5th in Rel MDCF% (Medium) with 2.71 ... Hamhuis was 1st with 5.00
1st in Rel LDCF% (Low) with 6.74 ... Henrik was 2nd with 2.99
All stats are 5v5
The massive difference between him and Henrik in Relative Low Danger Chances For is very telling. He put up a ton of shot attempts which makes his advanced stats look good, but they were of very low quality.8th in Rel HDCF% (High Danger Chances For) with 2.41 ... Henrik was 1st with 8.27
5th in Rel MDCF% (Medium) with 2.71 ... Hamhuis was 1st with 5.00
1st in Rel LDCF% (Low) with 6.74 ... Henrik was 2nd with 2.99
All stats are 5v5
Stats are from Naturalstattrick
Which makes sense given that he looked poor for most of the year. Honestly, I don’t know how anyone could watch his rookie season and characterize it as anything but poor. There are lots of cases of advanced statistics not accurately depicting a players performance and I think this is one of them.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,044
- 6,610
Sample size?
We cannot infer based on a 55 game sample.
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
There was also a report that his Corsi was very good in the AHL, granted they did it over a random sampling of I think 15 games.
Cannot infer what? That his 55 games were not “terrible” based on that 55 game sample?
We are talking descriptive stats and not predictive, right?
rune74
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2008
- 9,228
- 552
These don't seem that terrible for an 18 year old playing in the NHL, he wasn't a star that's for sure, but these don't look that bad at all.
- Status
