Player Discussion Jake Virtanen | XVI

[arttk]

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.

I remember one year we had to send Salo down for a conditioning stint and he killed it as a dman trying to get his fitness back.
I imagine most NHL players would have an insanely high shooting % down in the A.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

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

It may have been, and I did point it out in my defense of Jake the other day, but I am very skeptical of these numbers in what is essentially a half-season of regular play. I generally do not look at anything less than 2 years worth of this data. Anyone wanting to put too much stock in Jake's 15-16 numbers needs to also do the same with Granlund in 16-17 (our best forward by these metrics.) Granlund happened to be dead last in 15-16.

Point is it is just really messy data and I try not to read too much into it until there is enough icetime to really filter out the noise.

The problem with this stuff is that none of these metrics actually directly measure anything the player is doing. That is what makes it different from advanced stats in other sports or even traditional stats. You are looking at a team result and then trying to suss out "credit" for the event based on who was on the ice. Well a player can be on the ice for a lot of good events while still playing awful. You really need a lot of icetime, with the player playing in different situations, with different teammates, and against different competition, to be able to isolate how much of the metric is actually attributable to the player.

It is like trying to measure a goalie based on GAA. I think everyone accepts that GAA in a single season is not useful information. I would not consider a goalie's low GAA as a "positive indicator" if he was otherwise terrible.

Edit: But, having said all that, maybe. It was, after all, 55 games, not 15.

 

[settinguptheplay]

breaking discovery: information needs context to be useful

This is not true at all. Plenty of information does not require context. I suggest your narcissism blinds you from having the ability to be rational. This constant lashing out you are doing is quite telling. I will not be responding to you anymore. My preference is to have discussions with people whom do not immediately resort to personal attacks. I would have nothing to learn from you. Good day to you.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

breaking discovery: information needs context to be useful

I have always said, statistics = numbers + context. A statistic without context is just a number.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

This is not true at all. Plenty of information does not require context. I suggest your narcissism blinds you from having the ability to be rational. This constant lashing out you are doing is quite telling. I will not be responding to you anymore. My preference is to have discussions with people whom do not immediately resort to personal attacks. I would have nothing to learn from you. Good day to you.

I would really like to see an example where information taken out of context is useful. Information out of context is actually not information at all.

 

[Verviticus]

This is not true at all. Plenty of information does not require context. I suggest your narcissism blinds you from having the ability to be rational. This constant lashing out you are doing is quite telling. I will not be responding to you anymore. My preference is to have discussions with people whom do not immediately resort to personal attacks. I would have nothing to learn from you. Good day to you.

lmao

 

[settinguptheplay]

It may have been, and I did point it out in my defense of Jake the other day, but I am very skeptical of these numbers in what is essentially a half-season of regular play. I generally do not look at anything less than 2 years worth of this data. Anyone wanting to put too much stock in Jake's 15-16 numbers needs to also do the same with Granlund in 16-17 (our best forward by these metrics.) Granlund happened to be dead last in 15-16.

Point is it is just really messy data and I try not to read too much into it until there is enough icetime to really filter out the noise.

The problem with this stuff is that none of these metrics actually directly measure anything the player is doing. That is what makes it different from advanced stats in other sports or even traditional stats. You are looking at a team result and then trying to suss out "credit" for the event based on who was on the ice. Well a player can be on the ice for a lot of good events while still playing awful. You really need a lot of icetime, with the player playing in different situations, with different teammates, and against different competition, to be able to isolate how much of the metric is actually attributable to the player.

It is like trying to measure a goalie based on GAA. I think everyone accepts that GAA in a single season is not useful information. I would not consider a goalie's low GAA as a "positive indicator" if he was otherwise terrible.

Well said here Giraffe. Credit where credit is due. This is dead on.

 

[settinguptheplay]

I would really like to see an example where information taken out of context is useful. Information out of context is actually not information at all.

You misunderstood me. What I said is that knowledge/information does not necessarily require context to be understood. Statistics is not one of those things. Statistics absolutely requires context. Knowledge or information? Not so much.

 

[DL44]

He was our best defensive C last season.

Based on what? A similar cherry picked stat that made Hamhius your number 1 D the yr we lost him?

Stats are fun!

I think it's worth "sacrificing" that "high caliber d" for someone capable of something more than 1 g in 77gms. (Atho im sure his /60 stats were outstanding)
Time to move on.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I remember one year we had to send Salo down for a conditioning stint and he killed it as a dman trying to get his fitness back.
I imagine most NHL players would have an insanely high shooting % down in the A.

It is one of those things that makes sense, of course, when you carry it down to the extreme. An nhl player in some beer league would pretty much shoot 100%, no?

The converse should also be true, that players from lower levels should not be expected to sustain a sh% that is expected of NHL players.

This is the sort of thing where I think people run the most afoul with their analysis. You cannot apply these sorts of tenets that we have learned about nhl players to players who have not been proven to be nhl quality. I made this same argument when linden vey was here and some people were defending him based on him having a low pdo. While pdo has proven to be a powerful metric when projecting nhl players in such that it indicates a lot of noise that will regress, it cannot simply be applied to someone like linden vey who was not a proven nhl player. A low pdo in that case may well actually be indicative that he is not an NHL player, which he was not.

It is a similar concept to dips theory in baseball, if you follow that sport. While it had proven to be very useful in eliminating the noise from the metrics when evaluating mlb pitchers, its tenets cannot be applied to pitchers who are not of major league quality, who do not possess the same level of control over batted balls that mlb pitchers have come to possess.

 

[M2Beezy]

Yawn useless stats hes still around 15-25 on most prospects lists for our team

 

[me2]

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.

some good context

You do ,realize you are very incorrect. Jake was on the both the #1 and #2 PP unit for most every game from the time he arrived in Utica. Unit 1 or 2 depended upon who was healthy and who was in town at the time.
There were some games he sat it out but not many.

As to his lines:
-He began with Chaput and

-Next it was several games with Archi and Valk and he failed miserably.

-He was then assigned to Hamilton and Bancks for 19 games. The intended purpose I surmise was to acquaint him with the old hockey work standard of fore check, back check, pay check. It worked. Jake was a much more responsible defensive player the rest of the season without sacrificing any opportunity to go the other way. Once it was felt he understood he had a 2-way responsibility and was expected to play a 200 ft game he left the energy/checking line.

-His next line paired him on the opposite wing with the the team's highest scoring forward away from the Archi/Valk/Grenier top scoring line and that would be Cody Kunyk centered by Cassels. Green truly hoped he could get something going between Jake and Cody to produce a much needed scoring third line. As with his other lines, Jake did not respond a goal scoring breakout.

-Green would then replace Cassels with Pelletier and Kunyk would put up some points, but Jake didn't have an epiphany.

He would skate with several other odd pairings getting a shot with Zalewski as his center and end up the season with Valk centering him along with Kunyk.

So, in short he was availed the services of every center the Comets had and he scored 9 goals and picked up 10 assists in 65 games. None of the centers proved any better to him than any of the others. Most of his chances came on rushes resulting from break out passes or setups for wicked one timers on the PP. in which he most often missed They were very impressive, scintillating shots that looked good but served no purpose except to ice the puck against his own team since they were high and wide. Call the lines as you wish but Green was desperately rotating the guy around his team's centers to give Jake every possible chance to explode offensively but it was not to be. 25 goals from Jake probably gets the Comets into the post season. Heck 20 might have done it. They only needed 2 more wins somewhere throughout their season and they lost a lot of one goal games including 9 in extra time. 2 single goals in any of 2 of those 9 games and they were in. His lack of scoring was a death knell to a team not all that good to begin with.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Past 1k. New thread up.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Yawn useless stats hes still around 15-25 on most prospects lists for our team

Careful, you accidentally said something that isn't accurate.