Why the Jake Hate????

[Provost]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

On the radio this morning JD Burke said the opposite.  However he only based his opinion on Jake’s shooting %.  I like how you considered all those other factors.  

He talked about a lot more than just shooting %.  He talked about there being a number of two way stats and things like being a net negative in terms of shots and goals against, etc.

Combine that with the fact it has only been since December that he has had increased production, you just can't say he has turned some corner in terms of development.  He is at least, if not more likely to revert back to more like his norm of his entire career, including October and November of this season.

He has one of the highest ozone start % on the team, he has a negative corsi, we are outshot and out scored with him on the ice, and the "threat" analysis of the shots against us while he is on the ice is high.  There is plenty to worry about beyond his shooting percentage regressing to his average.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Provost

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

He talked about a lot more than just shooting %.  He talked about there being a number of two way stats and things like being a net negative in terms of shots and goals against, etc.

Combine that with the fact it has only been since December that he has had increased production, you just can't say he has turned some corner in terms of development.  He is at least, if not more likely to revert back to more like his norm of his entire career, including October and November of this season.

Burke suggested there were other stats, but never gave an actual stat to support his assertions.  He was called on his poorly supported comments by the radio host, and made up stuff he couldn’t support.  I don’t know this Burke guy from Adam, but I bet he never played hockey.  He sounds like a junior varsity kind of guy. 

[Provost]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Burke suggested there were other stats, but never gave an actual stat to support his assertions.  He was called on his poorly supported comments by the radio host, and made up stuff he couldn’t support.  I don’t know this Burke guy from Adam, but I bet he never played hockey.  He sounds like a junior varsity kind of guy. 

I am not sure what interview you are talking about, but go listen to the one on TSN.ca right now, it is the one I heard and it lays out several specific ones.  He didn’t give the actual numbers but said a number of the ones that worked against Jake.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Provost

[oldnews]

22 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Burke based his opinion on just shooting %.  Read ON’s opinion.  There is a lot more to consider in Jake’s game than simply shooting %.  Hell, just watch Jake play, and it’s obvious he’s playing very well.  

If you listen to the smarmies, you'll also learn things like EP is "an elite shutdown center" (Shah) or......Sutter is a slight upgrade over Tim Schaller as a 4th line winger, but the 3C role now belongs to Gaudette.   These are hopelesly oversimplified, reductive impressions that can only be gained via metric gazing that utterly fails to understand how the team is built and what Benning/Green intend when they actualy have the lineup they've built to work with.

 

EP isn't even playing center the majority of the time - that is Miller's role on that line - and furthermore, he's small/slight, he's not a very good faceoff guy and he faces a serious deficit in down low battles at this point of his career/development.   He is an ozone start, gamebreaking offensive talent and nothing resembling a "shutdown center' - it's embarrassing to even hear these kinds of claims out of lazy thinkers that purport to 'educate' the fanbase.

 

Likewise - Sutter is not a 4th line winger - he may occupy that role temporarily/situationally as he gains game shape, in a home game where Green has greater control over matchups and in circumstances where he's shaking off rust and maybe not quite ready to shut down Hall, Keller, Schmaltz, Dvorak ,Kessel the first shifts back....  However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Gaudette is in over his head as a 3C in the matchup aspects of that role at this point - he's also a weak faceoff guy, and he's playing opportune/sheltered minutes, at least as much as Green can supply under the circumstances, and otherwise has been exposed at times, particularly on the road, where coaches have jumped at every opportunity to confront him with Malkins whenever they can throw them out there.   Anyone who paid attention earlier in the season, when Green had both Sutter and Gaudette available, would realize he utilized a more complicated setup than an oversimplified 4 line setup - he alternated using Sutter as a 3C shutdown C, and had Gaudette on his wing at times, and he also used Gaudette to center a secondary scoring line - that is the flexibility that having 6 natural centers in the lneup affords.....Green effectively has scoring options of EP, Hovat and Gaudette lines, while at the same time having shutdown line otions of Sutter, Beagle and Horvat (who also moves back and forth from matchup to scoring line depending onthe health of the lineup).  As it is, Green has outstanding depth and options on both sides of the puck, but if you take Sutter and/or Beagle out of that equation, things change signficantly, and it's not for the better.  When they're healthy, you can not only give Pettersson all the tailored opportunity you hope, but you can also provide excellent conditions for Gaudette to be successful. 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

 I didn't listen to what he had to say - I can't  be bothered and find him very easy to predict (and precommitted to whatever absurd position he took in the past, regardless of what the larger picture indicates)

Says the guy who cherry picked a couple of stats to argue for years that Gudbranson was a top 4 D verging on top pairing territory.

 

Between your history of being spectacularly wrong and JD Burke who has access to talk with many of the top analytic guys in the sport... I know who has more credibility.

 

Using your favourite stats (Corsi and ozone starts) to defend Gudbranson, when all the other numbers that you ignored as unimportant, showed he was buried... Jake is getting oZone % starts higher than almost everyone on the team... higher than Boeser and Miller who are above him on the roster even.  Combine that with a poor Corsi number and anyone with a passing knowledge of analytics would say the number show a lot of risk that it is a blip and not sustainable improvement.

 

If you stratify pre-Roussel being put on his line in October and November, and then afterwards... it is stark how bad a season he was having until the last 5-6 weeks where he has been pretty great.  That is a really short window to base your team’s cap future on.

 

Everyone hopes he does well and can build on this.  At the same time, if you consider the risk of a nasty arbitration award this summer that could cost us being able to re-sign either Tanev or Stecher... or replace them with anything more expensive than Rafferty and Benn... then there is real cause for concern and wondering if Virtanen is a guy you want to build as a core piece with.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Provost

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

I can't be bothered with all due respect - it's probably better for everyone if you and I don't bother to engage each other.

 

This is the last time I'm going to bother to respond to anything you post, including mere rep.

 

You flluff JD Burke al you want.

 

I'll provide my own position and couldn't care less whether or not you agree with it.

 

Everyone else is, of course, free to form their own opinions.

 

If I need to put you on ignore, let me know. 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Burke based his opinion on just shooting %.  Read ON’s opinion.  There is a lot more to consider in Jake’s game than simply shooting %.  Hell, just watch Jake play, and it’s obvious he’s playing very well.  

The ironic thing is that these guys never tire of playing one Canuck off of another.

They love their stars,, otherwise, they're not really 'team' players. 

 

For example, for irony sake - Gaudette has been ordained the 3C in their minds  - has earned the 3C job in Sutter's absence, and now, apparently Sutter is righly confined to a 4th line winger role.

 

But what about the 'analytics'?

 

Gaudette's shooting percentage is 16.9%.

He's played 38 games, at 57.1% ozone starts (as a so-called "3C")...

And yet he has 'only' 8 goals in that time, only 4 of them at even strength.

 

Sutter has 5 goals in 23 games, all 5 at even strength, in a matchup/shutdown role. 

Just from a strict goal-scoring standpoint alone (which is apparently what the shots at Virtanen consist of - the idea he's not ''really' a 20 goal scorer in the making....because.....'analytics'/shooting percentage!!) --- what makes Gaudette bettert than Sutter in this respect?  Nothing.   Let alone the real shutdown/matchup implications and how much Sutter's role enables not only the EP and Gaudette types, but the pk/special teams,....

 

Anyhow Alfie, here in a nutshell is why I've had enough internet for the day, and took some time away from here.

I only have so much time to waste repeating the reasons why the JD Burkes and smarmies of the market oveersimplify their sandbagging of Canucks players.

 

It's more fun watching the team/games without the nonsense and noise these guys endlessly produce.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by oldnews

[JeremyCuddles]

The ozone starts comment sounds a bit dramatic, when you actually look at it he is getting 55% ozone starts. Which is like 1% more than Miller and Boeser. And 2% less than Petey and Gaudette. It's not like he is being sheltered. Lol. His dzone starts are likely due to the center he plays with Gaudette. He is quite poor in the faceoff dot and I'd argue is a worse defender than Jake but that's an argument for another time. Which means the line generally needs to be used in the ozone.

 

And the corsi number also sounds a bit worse than it is. 48% isn't terrible possession numbers, obviously you want to be above 50% but when he is on the ice he isn't getting hemmed in his own zone super often. Bo Horvat has a 49% corsi. A whopping 1% more than Jake. Jake's normal linemates have a 44.8% (Gaudette) and a 42.7% (Roussel) corsi as a reference as well. 

 

(All stats pulled from Hockey reference) I am not saying Jake is perfect, but he is not a problem at the same time. And I don't attribute his scoring numbers to "accident". I wouldn't call him a 20 goal scorer but he CAN score 20. Just depends on who you play him with and how often you play him. Overall he is quite a good player and I trust JD Burke's opinion about as much as I trust my 2 year old niece's opinion.

[IBatch]

On 9/20/2019 at 12:11 AM, 48MPHSlapShot said:

A 2nd is debatable, but if someone offers you a 1st for Virtanen, you take it and run. 

Times have changed...still feel that way?  The value defintely there - given his draft position less then 400 games is considered a bust and he's definitely bought himself a new contract...everyone's gets that we've waited a long time for the results - but they are here now.   I'm pretty confident that this isn't going to be his career year - worked his way into Burrows old spot...let's see if he can keep it. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Times have changed...still feel that way?  The value defintely there - given his draft position less then 400 games is considered a bust and he's definitely bought himself a new contract...everyone's gets that we've waited a long time for the results - but they are here now.   I'm pretty confident that this isn't going to be his career year - worked his way into Burrows old spot...let's see if he can keep it. 

It's a bit of a tough call now, isn't it? At the time of my initial post, Virtanen was looking as low as he ever has. Green had relegated him to the second group and he was apparently showed up to camp a bit out of shape. How things can change in 4 months. 

 

As of this moment, it's hard to say. If we're talking Boston or Washington's 1st, I may actually decline. If we're talking a mid 1st it'd still be pretty hard to say no, but my perspective has definitely changed. He has slowed down a little bit as of late, only collecting 3 points in his last 8 games, so we'll see whether or not he's able to put up top 6 production moving forward in the second half of the season, but if he's able to net 20 goals and 40+ points to end the season and close in on 50 points next season that would be pretty awesome. I see him topping off putting up Chris Kreider-esque numbers, which would at least somewhat justify his draft position. 

 

But yeah, at this point I'm not moving him unless someone blatantly overpays.

[kenhodgejr]

Jake will mature late. Thats just the way he is built. He is trying and has been better year after year which is a good sign. I feel his best years will be when he is 26-28. 

His trade value has only gone up and will continue to do so. He is cheap and we probably won't have to pay him much to keep him around. He is a team guy and everyone likes him. He keeps things light. He is a slow learner but he means well. In my opinion the best asset management would be to keep him on the team until he is 27 and then trade him for something good. 

 

Edit- One part of Jakes game that is often overlooked is the unpredictability of what he does with the puck. Most players are more predictable but Jake is the kind of guy who will get credit for some accidental play that he didn't try to make but it worked out. Its nice for the coach to have a guy like that. Also we have a problem with not shooting the puck sometimes. Jakes mindset is simple and he usually only thinks shoot or take it to the net. Its been working pretty good for him. I don't mind having one guy like him on the team so long as he keeps the body checks up. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by kenhodgejr

[nuk76]

For not having much time on the first line, only lately getting PP time, the 14 goals he's got have come at one cheap contract. Going to be interesting at contract time.

[Alflives]

Just now, nuk76 said:

For not having much time on the first line, only lately getting PP time, the 14 goals he's got have come at one cheap contract. Going to be interesting at contract time.

I see Jake getting a two year bridge deal for 2 mil per.  

[CptCanuck16]

11 hours ago, Provost said:

If you listen to this J.D. Burke interview, he explains that the underlying numbers still seem to indicate that it is more likely that this current production is noise rather than indicative of a sustained higher trajectory.

There certainly isn't enough of a sample to indicate he is a legit 20 goal scorer.  He has had a good few weeks after a poor training camp, October and November.

The real worry is that he hits 20 goals this year and his arbitration number gets ugly... and then he reverts back to the mean.  You could be looking at an arbitration award that starts with a three or four, and that is a worrying number.  The team will have a really difficult decision deciding on whether he is a player they want to spend that money on or whether a return from a trade could be worth more.

Beagle makes $3m. Nothing against him, he has his role. I'm just saying that if theyre paying a 30+ year old that kind of money to put in 5 goals a year than why is the prospect of them paying the same to a 15 to 20 goal scoring 23 year old worrisome?

Edited January 18, 2020 by CptCanuck16

[Provost]

43 minutes ago, CptCanuck16 said:

Beagle makes $3m. Nothing against him, he has his role. I'm just saying that if theyre paying a 30+ year old that kind of money to put in 5 goals a year than why is the prospect of them paying the same to a 15 to 20 goal scoring 23 year old worrisome?

Well, for several good reasons.  One is that if we pay Jake that money, it means we are capped out and lose several other players like Tanev and Stecher and replace them with cheaper and crappier options which worsens our team.

 

The other is that you could be paying that money for a disinterested guy who every year shows up to training camp out of shape and occasionally puts in some effort that gets him 25 points a season while costing more goals when he is on the ice than he produces.... Like what even his current high water mark numbers suggest.

 

It is exactly the same reason you would have been rightly worried about Hutton getting a big top 4 D tier arbitration award after accidentally playing a lot of minutes due to injury.  You are paying for a level of player that you don’t actually get.

 

You can’t have success in the league with a bunch of players on inefficient contracts underperforming their cap hits.  Beagle brings something different and is also clearly overpaid compared with his contribution.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Provost

[Hairy Kneel]

The one play that stood out for me this season was Jake skating into the zone with control of the puck with one hand, as he used his other arm/stiff arm  to keep the defender away. He glided to the open wing then dished it off.  The play was a power forward move that reminded me of a Bertizzi /Neely type of move.

[VforVasili]

14 hours ago, Alflives said:

On the radio this morning JD Burke said the opposite.  However he only based his opinion on Jake’s shooting %.  I like how you considered all those other factors.  

The trouble is that JD Burke is a proven idiot. His opinion generally leads me to think the opposite. 

[VforVasili]

I think what some of you are really trying to say is:

 

I’m sorry I doubted you Jake, you beautiful bastard. 

[Wanless]

 

 

7 hours ago, Provost said:

Well, for several good reasons.  One is that if we pay Jake that money, it means we are capped out and lose several other players like Tanev and Stecher and replace them with cheaper and crappier options which worsens our team.

 

The other is that you could be paying that money for a disinterested guy who every year shows up to training camp out of shape and occasionally puts in some effort that gets him 25 points a season while costing more goals when he is on the ice than he produces.... Like what even his current high water mark numbers suggest.

 

It is exactly the same reason you would have been rightly worried about Hutton getting a big top 4 D tier arbitration award after accidentally playing a lot of minutes due to injury.  You are paying for a level of player that you don’t actually get.

 

You can’t have success in the league with a bunch of players on inefficient contracts underperforming their cap hits.  Beagle brings something different and is also clearly overpaid compared with his contribution.

 

You want Jake to stop putting up points and regress back to his career average (which by the way has improved every year as evident by his stat line and the eye test) so you don't have to pay him?

 

You talk about zone starts but neglect to bring in to factor that the primary center he plays with has been getting even higher o zone starts than him

 

His shooting percent is 5% higher than in previous years but fail to mention that this year 36% of his shots are coming from the slot compared to 31% last year while the league average is 33%. He's not just getting lucky with his shots, he shooting from a more dangerous location. https://www.icydata.hockey/players/2063/jake-virtanen

Another interesting stat is that he has 29% of his goals coming from the right side of the net, last year 0% and goals from the left side at 7% this year and 20%. 

 

So if anything this tells me a combination of he's being coached to up his abilities, he's recognizing and utilizing his abilities, his shot is getting better, he's placing himself in higher danger shooting locations

 

Based on my eye test, Jake is much more engaged this season, he's now also starting to get under the skin of opponents with his play, Malkin as the standout. And while his offense is increasing he is still hitting at almost 2 recorded his per game, his average but could be higher, and takeaway giveaway at a 2-1 ration.

 

Jake is improving his offense this season and will show that he is going to be a great third liner. He still might be able to up his numbers by playing with better line mates but as long as his linemates numbers don't go down then he's worth 4.5/year you are worried about.

 

The reality is this team now has players worth 4+ million contracts but has a couple dead weight contracts. But in managing it, we will see players like Pearson or Tanev being moved to make the space for Petterson and Hughes. But because of good drafting guys like Hoglander Lind and Podkolzin come in on ELC and on d maybe a Rafferty or Woo steps up or Tryamkim works out. Teams that are continually doing well keep their growing players and move on from those that play a role they feel are replaceable. 

 

If the team has to move on from Tanev and the d suffers a little it wouldn't be the first time a team has regressed due to cap constraints. It's part of the long term game of staying competetive.

 

Also keeping Virtanen for 5 more seasons>keeping Tanev for 5 more seasons

 

 

 

[CptCanuck16]

9 hours ago, Provost said:

Well, for several good reasons.  One is that if we pay Jake that money, it means we are capped out and lose several other players like Tanev and Stecher and replace them with cheaper and crappier options which worsens our team.

 

The other is that you could be paying that money for a disinterested guy who every year shows up to training camp out of shape and occasionally puts in some effort that gets him 25 points a season while costing more goals when he is on the ice than he produces.... Like what even his current high water mark numbers suggest.

 

It is exactly the same reason you would have been rightly worried about Hutton getting a big top 4 D tier arbitration award after accidentally playing a lot of minutes due to injury.  You are paying for a level of player that you don’t actually get.

 

You can’t have success in the league with a bunch of players on inefficient contracts underperforming their cap hits.  Beagle brings something different and is also clearly overpaid compared with his contribution.

JB can make some trades. Move Sutter, Schaller, or even Beagle to clear some space. Replace them with ELCs from the Comets. 

 

Whether he's disinterested or just young and immature is debatable. Do you recall a few seasons ago when Markstrom was the backup for Miller and he was known as the goofy jokester? Beiksa even made the comment recently on HNIC that obviously he's matured, is taking the game seriously, and dedicated himself to it. That from a teammate who actually interacted with him on and off the ice. Apparently when he was younger he was more about goofing off and being the comedian than playing hockey. Look at him now. The same can and is happening  with Jake. 

 

All the Canucks 3rd and 4th liners are in the red when it comes to plus/minus. Jake's no different.  Pearson has been on the 2nd line all season and makes $3.75m. I bet that if their roles were reversed and Pearson was 3rd line he'd have a lot less points and Virt would have a lot more. While I agree that Jake's just been floating along so far in his career I think the tide is turning and he's beginning to step up his game.  Is he worth $4m at this point? No. I would offer himn$2-2.5 for 1-2 years and tell him he needs to prove himself for that high next contract.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by CptCanuck16