Player Discussion Jake Virtanen | XVI

[Verviticus]

if it were the opposite i'd say well that's just another small observation in the giant pile of them that suggests he's been a disappointment. you don't need to dig at all to come to that conclusion

yeah it's unadjusted

 

[Verviticus]

What were Virtanen's under lying numbers in the NHL 2 seasons ago. That would have been the largest single sample size available I would imagine. If they show similar to the 15 game sample size last year I would fairly assume some accuracy. But if he was a bad possession player than I would agree a 15 game sample size in the AHL is pretty meaningless.

his success there doesn't have much bearing or connection to this info

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

The other problem is that you cannot apply the things we have learned about the NHL from analytics straight across to other leagues.

For example, we know that NHL players have a fairly narrow range in terms of SH%, and so we expect all NHL players shooting outside this range to eventually regress. We do not know this to be true about players who are not NHL players.

 

[settinguptheplay]

nearly 51%. Weak on High Danger. I haven't found AHL more advanced stats yet so Utica fans might need post about Jake's game.

My knowledge of advanced stats is not all that strong. Would 50% be considered average? And by high danger does that mean shots taken from the prime shooting area's vs shots against from the same area's?

 

[iceburg]

Baseless accusations that cannot be confirmed because they are premised on a hypothetical alternate reality of posters behaviour are even more worthless than 15-game corsi and in no way contribute to or further any topic of conversation.

"If X had happened you guys would be saying Y!" <- No way to prove or disprove this, does not help anything, and absolutely pointless to post it. It is spam, it is trolling, and it is worthless garbage.

I was one of the tools who voted for Virtanen in the #8 thread and was defending him to y2k, so my thoughts on this have nothing to do with my stance on Virtanen.

Not really unfounded. I think you're mostly ignoring the anti-Virtanen theme on these boards. I'm not saying a healthy dose of scepticism isn't warranted. But the negativity is over-the-top...kinda like your response to my post. But that's ok, there is another theme emerging.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

My knowledge of advanced stats is not all that strong. Would 50% be considered average? And by high danger does that mean shots taken from the prime shooting area's vs shots against from the same area's?

It depends heavily on the team. His 51% led Canuck forwards but would have been last on LA.

 

[settinguptheplay]

his success there doesn't have much bearing or connection to this info

If he had positive corsi over different leagues it would not be a stretch to assume some correlation. So I will take the agree to disagree stance on this. I just find it odd that we are so quick to call him a bust off of his goal and assist stats yet so quick to discount a statistic that supports him as a one off and immediately diminished. So do stats matter or do they not?

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Not really unfounded. I think you're mostly ignoring the anti-Virtanen theme on these boards. I'm not saying a healthy dose of scepticism isn't warranted. But the negativity is over-the-top...kinda like your response to my post. But that's ok, there is another theme emerging.

Talking about a "theme" on a message board with hundreds of active posters is silly. Every topic has a lot people for and against, every topic will garner some negative reaction from somebody. You are correct that some people would be bashing Virtanen if the number had been 41%, but I would not have been one of them.

Regardless, I am sorry if I was too over-the-top. I am just a miserable person these days.

 

[Verviticus]

The other problem is that you cannot apply the things we have learned about the NHL from analytics straight across to other leagues.

For example, we know that NHL players have a fairly narrow range in terms of SH%, and so we expect all NHL players shooting outside this range to eventually regress. We do not know this to be true about players who are not NHL players.

we know high shooting % is a more repeatable talent in the ahl than it is in the nhl

edit: i think. i couldn't immediately find a thing on it but i was sure i've seen it

 

[Verviticus]

If he had positive corsi over different leagues it would not be a stretch to assume some correlation. So I will take the agree to disagree stance on this. I just find it odd that we are so quick to call him a bust off of his goal and assist stats yet so quick to discount a statistic that supports him as a one off and immediately diminished. So do stats matter or do they not?

their importance is reliant on a huge set of variables. the thing i linked is near the bottom of importance

 

[me2]

My knowledge of advanced stats is not all that strong. Would 50% be considered average? And by high danger does that mean shots taken from the prime shooting area's vs shots against from the same area's?

Yes/No. 50% is average but it depends on your team. Nobody on the 2014-15 Flames cracked 50%, while nearly everyone on Boston did that year. It also depends on your usage, heavy on Dzone starts would hurt you and a checking role - breaking even might be good.


Yes.

 

[settinguptheplay]

It depends heavily on the team. His 51% led Canuck forwards but would have been last on LA.

In that case every other Canuck was also worse. So am I to draw from that that every LA King was better than every Canuck? Or is the statistic ultimately useless.

 

[iceburg]

Talking about a "theme" on a message board with hundreds of active posters is silly. Every topic has a lot people for and against, every topic will garner some negative reaction from somebody. You are correct that some people would be bashing Virtanen if the number had been 41%, but I would not have been one of them.

Regardless, I am sorry if I was too over-the-top. I am just a miserable person these days.

No worries. I enjoy a healthy debate. I just find it's way more productive to do it with limited vitriol. Posters are way more willing to listen if they don't feel like they're being attacked. It's the reason I try to speak out against the hyperbole. One can learn a lot more from a civil debate, even if they never agree.

 

[Verviticus]

In that case every other Canuck was also worse. So am I to draw from that that every LA King was better than every Canuck? Or is the statistic ultimately useless.

neither

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

we know high shooting % is a more repeatable talent in the ahl than it is in the nhl

That is what I would suspect, yes. I would expect, moreover, that players who go on to become NHL players, are able to sustain a very high SH% at the AHL level. This renders shot attempt metrics at such levels to be less useful.

 

[settinguptheplay]

neither

Prove it.

 

[Verviticus]

no, **** off

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

In that case every other Canuck was also worse. So am I to draw from that that every LA King was better than every Canuck? Or is the statistic ultimately useless.

You are to draw that the LA Kings were a much better team than the Canucks but that the Canucks as a team happened to have the best ratio of shot attempts for/against at 5-on-5 in situations when Jake Virtanen was on the ice.

Whether or not this had anything to do with Jake Virtanen's play is the crux of the entire argument.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

No worries. I enjoy a healthy debate. I just find it's way more productive to do it with limited vitriol. Posters are way more willing to listen if they don't feel like they're being attacked. It's the reason I try to speak out against the hyperbole. One can learn a lot more from a civil debate, even if they never agree.

This is fair but I do not think it is civil to say "if X had happened, you guys would say Y." This is just a silly snipe that is neither provable nor likely to lead to any productive conversation.

 

[settinguptheplay]

no, **** off

Poor little snowflake....

 

[Verviticus]

You are to draw that the LA Kings were a much better team than the Canucks but that the Canucks as a team happened to have the best ratio of shot attempts for/against at 5-on-5 in situations when Jake Virtanen was on the ice.

Whether or not this had anything to do with Jake Virtanen's play is the crux of the entire argument.

are you of the mind that jake's numbers in 15-16 wasn't a positive indicator for his performance that year?

 

[iceburg]

This is fair but I do not think it is civil to say "if X had happened, you guys would say Y." This is just a silly snipe that is neither provable nor likely to lead to any productive conversation.

I understand your point but I really don't think it's unreasonable to point out that opinions could be measured. But maybe that's a little too self-righteous.

 

[Verviticus]

sure you can point it out, its not just not really a component of a civil discussion

i dont really care if discussions are civil are not though so go nuts

 

[settinguptheplay]

You are to draw that the LA Kings were a much better team than the Canucks but that the Canucks as a team happened to have the best ratio of shot attempts for/against at 5-on-5 in situations when Jake Virtanen was on the ice.

Whether or not this had anything to do with Jake Virtanen's play is the crux of the entire argument.

Sure. I do not disagree with this. But you are really proving my original point. We often use stats to build a player up or to tear him down. I say statistics of any sort can be deeply flawed if not taken into context. Most often used out of context to help support an argument.

 

[Verviticus]

breaking discovery: information needs context to be useful