-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by tyhee
-
His defence, positioning and perhaps board work will likely be negative factors. It's hard to know right now whether his speed, skill and strength will be enough to make him, on balance, useful to the Canucks next year. imo a more important question is what development path will make Virtananen the best Canuck he can be during his prime? Personally, I consider the unavailable track-Utica next year, expecting he'd probably be in Vancouver the year after-to be probably the best way for him to learn the pro game. While learning he'd get to play against men that would be less easily overwhelmed by his speed and strength than junior players. Since that isn't possible, Canucks will have to decide next training camp whether the learning curve would be so steep it might hurt his development. Another year in junior is the alternative but playing against people many of whom are going to be far behind him in speed and strength obviously isn't ideal for development either. No rush right now. The decision is 8 months away.
-
I too think the higher likelihood is that he goes back to jr next year. Like some others, probably, His strength and speed are such that imo it would be better for him to be learning the pro game against adults and I see it as really unfortunate he won't be able to do that in Utica.
-
I posted, in part to which Canorth responded That sounded familiar, so I dug this up. -Vintage Canuck-, on 29 Sept 2014 - 09:44 AM, said: Thanks. I should know better than to trust recollection without looking it up and finding a source.
-
Marchand is. Source: http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20142ALLSAAALL&sort=avgShotsPerGame&viewName=summary
-
It doesn't necessarily mean it, but: -he's been making $1.2 million on a 1-way deal, more than Lack is making and I'd suggest there's no reason for him to expect a raise -I have a recollection-could be wrong-of Benning admitting Marstrom wasn't happy at the way he was snuck through waivers this past summer My guess is he wants to play in the NHL, thought he'd be the backup this year and hasn't been happy to be splitting time in Utica instead of playing in the NHL. He might feel differently if Lack is traded. Regardless, he won't be an UFA this year and I'd think the chances of him getting more than what a qualifying offer would be through arbitration or an offer sheet from another club.
-
As one should expect from a 19 year old, it's a big step up for him but he's showing improvement. Higher on this page is my post of 12:49 p.m. January 10, which showed Horvat with a CF% of 41.1 and a CF%RelTM of -7.8. His play the last few games have raised those season figures a little, to 42.2 and -7.4. The trend is going the right way.
-
You can probably get a pretty good sense by going back a page or two on this thread, perhaps starting with Avelanche on December 11.
-
I can't see how it can even be suggested the stats are the result of his deployment. His teammates possession stats are significantly worse with him than without him. A negative -7.8% CF%REltm is truly awful-it means his teammates possession stats are much, much worse when playing with him than they are otherwise. Also, his defensive zone faceoff starts are a smaller portion of his starts than all but one other of the top 13 forwards. His opponents' CF% is 50.1-almost exactly average. There's nothing there at all to suggest that his CF% is the result of playing with poorer than average teammates, against good opponents or his zone deployment.
-
It's interesting how different people see different things. A little under 40 years ago in an Evidence class at UBC our prof decided to give a demonstration on the lack of reliability of eyewitness testimony. He had another prof-Beverly McLachlin (who has since 2000 been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) come in and start an argument with him during our Evidence lecture. The argument had been completely scripted but the class was not aware of that. After Ms. McLachlin (as she then was) left the class, our prof handed out a pre-printed question sheet for us to answer questions about our observations. We handed them in and the next class, a few days later, he gave us the results. On the whole, the class did dismally. Really, really, dismally. The prof assured us that was absolutely normal and that the reason is that eyewitnesses don't do well at all at getting details correct. Transfer that to hockey games which most posters are watching on TV rather than in person and that virtually all posters will find they have some emotions and preconceptions about, and I'd suggest that eyewitnesses testimony when someone says so and so did or didn't play well are going to be less reliable than most people would anticipate. For that reason, rather than hate stats because they don't always fit what I've observed to be the case, I tend to rely on them somewhat (though it requires some care) when someone else has observations are inconsistent with mine. You've specifically referred to WD benching Horvat late in games even though in your opinion he "has earned some responsibility." Before going on I'll state that my own observations have been the opposite of yours. I didn't think he'd earned responsibility. An hour or so I posted the following on a thread about Kassian: ___________ From the point of view of scoring, 5 on 5 only (so pp and pk points not included) per 60 minutes played through the Florida game of this past Thursday night: Bonino 2.46 Higgins 1.95 Burrows 1.84 twins each 1.77 Richardson 1.73 Vrbata 1.61 Dorsett 1.58 Vey 1.38 Matthias 1.30 Kassian 1.29 Horvat 1.20 Hansen 1.18 source: http://stats.hockeya...CT&sortdir=DESC Of course, there's more to the game than scoring. +/- takes into account goals for and against while on the ice at even strength, a statistic that is rightly maligned. Among the problems are the extremely small sample size. Corsi or Fenwick statistics substantially decrease the problem with sample size. Those stats also aren't perfect, but the luck from sample size is much lower than +/-, though the sample size problem still exists with Corsi stats over partial seasons. I tend to look at relativeCorsi%, which measures Corsi relative to the teammates a player actually was on the ice with (+ is good, - is bad,) but one needs to keep in mind that Corsi stats are also skewed by zone starts (which are shown below,) strength of opponents played against (also shown below) and score effects-that is, a trailing team will tend to have higher Corsi stats as they push to catch up while the opponents defend more than usual. Looking at Corsi stats at 5 on 5 play: CF% CF%RelTM OppCF% OZFO% DZFO% NZFO% Higgins 52.1 6.0 50.4 30.3 33.2 36.5 Daniel S 51.6 4.6 50.3 30.1 27.0 42.9 Kassian 50.7 3.2 50.1 31.6 33.7 34.7 Henrik 52.4 3.1 50.3 30.0 26.9 43.1 Bonino 51.0 2.9 50.3 30.2 35.4 34.4 Vrbata 50.7 1.8 50.0 30.2 27.0 42.8 Burrows 50.1 1.6 50.2 29.3 32.8 37.9 Richardson 48.3 1.1 49.9 32.4 34.5 33.1 Matthias 46.9 -1.5 50.1 31.7 32.8 35.5 Vey 46.8 -1.7 49.6 34.9 30.8 34.3 Hansen 46.4 -2.0 50.2 32.5 29.4 38.1 Dorsett 43.5 -5.7 50.0 33.5 25.0 41.5 Horvat 41.1 -7.8 50.1 31.1 26.4 42.6 Source: http://stats.hockeya...TM&sortdir=DESC as of 11:20 a.m. Jan 10, 2015. ... Note again that stats can be skewed by various things, though a large sample size would deal with most of them. In this case, the sample size is relatively small and of course I haven't included anything other than 5 on 5 so players whose strengths are predominantly special teams won't have their abilities reflected in possession stats, nor will someone whose shooting ability is well above the norm. Also, willingness to stand in the tough areas-especially in front of the net-are not going to be represented in shot attempt stats. _________________ Going by the stats-both scoring and shot attempt (sometimes called "possession") Horvat hasn't been a good NHL player. Granted, he's a very good 19 year old-but neither my eyes, nor scoring stats, nor possession stats, suggest he's any better than replacement level at this stage of his very young career. He doesn't score much. When he's on the ice his team has had fewer shot attempts than the opposition, fewer shot attempts than would be expected by his quality of teammates on the ice with him, while starting in the defensive zone less than all but one of the other forwards for the Canucks this season. (These stats don't include Sestito, DeFazio or Jensen because the site I used this morning doesn't include players with less than 50 minutes playing time for the season.) While the sample size is small, Desjardins' decision to limit Horvat's time is consistent with what the statistics indicate about his play.
-
My reading of the CBA is somewhat different. The rules were changed a bit in the most recent collective bargaining agreement. Demko started college in 2013 and was drafted at the age of 18 in June, 2014, though he'd turn 19 before the end of 2014. The relevant paragraph if he stays with his graduating class is 8.6(c )(i) which would give the Canucks his rights until August 15, 2017, when his college class graduates. Accordingly, if he stays in school until his class graduates in 2017, he could become a free agent by refusing to sign with the Canucks before August 15, 2017. However, the situation you describe is him leaving school. The relevant paragraph appears to me to be 8.6(c )(ii) which reads: If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or ( thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for such Player's services through and including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights. _________ So, typically if he were to leave school the Canucks would keep his rights until the later of June 1, 2018 and the day which is 30 days after the NHL receives notice he's left college. Effectively this means they'd keep his rights until June 1, 2018 if he left school, unless the notice he'd left school was received after January 1, 2017 in which case the Canucks would only keep his rights through August 15, 2017-the same as if he stayed in school.
-
Isn't this a Jake Virtanen thread? Isn't there a special thread for those of you that want to talk about the 6th pick in the 2014 draft, called the "Virtanen v Nylander/Ehlers/Ritchie" thread?
-
Sorry for digressing a bit, but Deb's point about taking in a game is imo a really important one and is something I've been thinking about lately when reading some of the posts on here. When watching in person, most people will have a tendency to follow the puck. Things like who that is standing in front of the net, who is staying in his defensive lane (zone) or marking his man (man to man-to use basketball-like terms) and such are noticeable but noticing on a consistent basis takes wanting to watch out for those things and some effort. For most people it is far more enjoyable and easier to spend most of the time watching what his happening in the immediate area of the puck. On tv it is much worse. Players are tougher to recognize, the camera almost always follows the puck and the announcers give the names of those that touch the puck. Accordingly, it gets really hard for most of us to watch a game and really know at the end of it who has consistently done the right things defensively and who has made what contributions offensively away from the puck. Gifted offensive players can look great in such circumstances, as they'll be around the puck in the offensive zone and usually look good when they have it. Good, consistent defensive players with average or mediocre offensive skills can look pretty poor. They only get the puck a relatively few times and sometimes aren't slick with it when they get it. To get back to the point of this thread, I agree that if what the Canucks need to add on the pp is a net presence, Burrows is a good candidate. He doesn't have ideal size for that role, but he's shown himself willing to take the punishment in front of the net.
-
If McDavid is as good as he's touted to be, this should be his last WJC.
-
If Calgary truly is a poor place for him, where can he play next year? From the little I've seen of him, it struck me he's strong enough and fast enough that he doesn't really belong playing Jr next year-he should be playing people who can challenge his speed and strength at least somewhat. From what others have written on this thread it would be surprising if he's ready to gain WD's trust defensively. As quite a few posters have pointed out he's not eligible to play in the AHL next year. Unless he can make the Canucks he'd be in Jr. and if the Hitmen don't trade him he may have the same coaching that people are questioning this year. All this could mean he arrives in Utica in 2016 still raw. btw, Travis Green's performance last year and this has to be getting some notice in NHL offices.
-
I doubt he's taken enough faceoffs in Utica this season to draw a conclusion. The lineups I've seen had him listed as a LW.
-
In addition to good prospects looking for NCAA scholarships, the BCHL has other players most of whom are not good enough for major junior.
-
The "4th" line looked dangerous all night. Horvat won 80% of his faceoffs and had 3 assists to go with the goal from last game. After Benning saying he'd like him to make it, can you imagine the fury if they tried to send him down now? I'm normally in favour of seasoning young players in jr/minors, but his faceoffs are strong, his defence is good, his offensive instincts seem to have reappeared, if he hasn't made it then explaining it would be next to impossible.
-
fwiw, to me he looked like he was moving slowly and uncertainly when in the offensive zone. It may well be that as others suggested he needs some Jr time to regain his offensive game.
-
Actually, it's really easy. Accept that Canucks drafted Virtanenen, accept that he's coming off shoulder surgery with no summer training, no training camp and not able to play during the early parts of the season and stop fixating on some guy you wanted more. Seriously. It's not hard at all. If you're a fan of Nylander, then follow Nylander, but he has nothing to do with Virtanen. They aren't connected. Does someone writing about Devin Setoguchi find it necessary to mention Kopitar? Is is necessary when discussing the play of Marc Staal to refer to Martin Hanzal?
-
With the late start and the surgery, anything over a ppg is alright, more would be nice but would be a bonus. What would make a successful draft year +1 in my mind would be for him to improve his consistency and defensive play.
-
You may think that the 9 game window and so future cap hit isn't as important as whether he is better than his replacement now and how he'll best develop to give the Canucks the most value in the future, and if that's what you'd said I wouldn't argue with that. But "shouldn't ... give a damn" is the same as saying it isn't a consideration. With that, I disagree. It is a consideration that at the very least could tip the scales if JB considers the decision close otherwise.
-
"The only way this will work well is with Horvat on the 4th (lowest minute) line getting 11 to 13 minutes a game to start (as soon as the coach is comfortable with him)." Then later: "Give Horvat 5 more games but play him 10 minutes or more a game to give him a real shot. It takes 10 minutes to settle in to a game for bejeepers sake." Do you want the coach to be comfortable with him in those minutes, as the first quote indicates, or do you want him to give him the minutes even if not, as the second seems to suggest?
-
Kingston Frontenacs have 7W 6L 1SL for 15 points in 14 games, 3rd in the 5 team East Division. McEneny's former team, Kitchener, has 8W 3L 3SL for 19 pts in 14 games, 4th in the 5 team MW Division.
-
I may be among the least optimistic about his game tonight, though like pretty much everyone I am optimistic for the future. He's been quoted as saying he didn't sleep well last night. He's about to play at altitude. He's yet to show he can score or win faceoffs at the NHL level. I'd consider it an acceptable initiation if he works hard throughout the game, plays a sound defensive game and wins 40% of his faceoffs. Anything more would be a bonus. The 40% for faceoffs is what Vey has averaged the first 12 games this season.
-
That's possible, but it would require Canucks to break up their 1st unit powerplay. I'm guessing Vey gets a pass for that reason. Canucks didn't have much PP time last night.