We can dive into analytics as much as we want to, but when you go deep enough you start to see discrepancies that are so razor thin that even a slight alteration to a lineup, a slight alteration to the player's fitness level or headspace, a change in coaching direction, etc etc etc...can have a pretty drastic effect. While certainly not as exact as smaller, analytical statistics, I still think that overall production is still the best indicator of how a player is doing, as it takes all of these analytical statistics into consideration, but is still on a general enough to compensate for slight discrepancies here and there.
One also has to look at how well a player is passing the good old fashioned eye test. The main point of contention with Virtanen for years now has been his hockey IQ. "He has all the tools, but doesn't have the toolbox". It's a phrase we've heard a thousand times, especially as it pertains to Virtanen, and it wasn't without merit. He's always been great off the rush, but looked a bit lost when it came to half-court offense. When I watch him now, I'm noticing a pretty drastic change in that regard. He seems to be predicting where the play is going to go at a higher level than in years past. He's pushing the play forward as opposed to simply reacting to the play, and I think this is the biggest difference in his game right now. He recently said in an interview that he's been watching and studying EP and how he plays the game, and as we all know EP probably has one of the highest hockey IQs in the entire league. Even if it's superficial and he's merely mimicking some of EPs tendencies, it's having a tangible effect imo, and it's one of the ways that an addition to the lineup can have a significant effect on the players within that lineup. Just thought it was worth mentioning.
As far as the arguments in this thread go, as with most heated debates, the answer I feel lies somewhere in the middle. He was never the bust that some here made him out to be, but with that said, he's probably never going to be on the level that a Nylander or Ehlers are either. In a redraft, both those players are gone well before Jake would be. That still doesn't mean Jake isn't a valuable part of the team and it doesn't mean he wasn't a good pick. It just means that he wasn't 'the best pick', and you know what? He doesn't need to be.