[Nick Ritchie] Junior Point totals vs Getzlaf, Lucic, and Nash

[Ihatetomatoes]

Since I was asked. though not too politely.

Conclusion: Ritchie has little difference in level of production regardless of the quality of competition.

Goals Vs Top 6 Teams ( Guelph, Erie, London, Sault Ste Marie, Oshawa, Kingston) = 14

Goals Vs Bottom 6 Teams ( Sarnia, Kitchener, Ottawa, Belleville, Mississauga, Niagara) = 16

2013-09-19 KGN@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (1) (

S. Pierog

,

S. Varga

), 17:05

2013-09-26 PLY@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (2) (

A. Stefano

,

J. Maguire

), 6:18

2013-09-26 PLY@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (3) (

J. Tanus

,

E. Cornel

), 15:53 (PP)

2013-09-27 PBO@KIT

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (4) (

M. Clarke

,

N. Armstrong

), 15:57 (PP)

2013-09-27 PBO@KIT

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (5) (

N. Armstrong

), 15:23 (PP)

2013-10-17 MISS@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (6) (

E. Cornel

,

J. Tanus

), 11:52

2013-11-07 KIT@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (7) (

N. Armstrong

), 0:21

2013-11-07 KIT@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (8) (

S. Pierog

), 13:50 (SH)

2013-11-08 PBO@ SBY

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (9) (

E. Cornel

,

J. Tanus

), 8:49 (PP)

2013-11-09 PBO@SSM

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (10) (

J. MacDonald

), 7:33

2013-11-15 PBO@GUE

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (11) (

N. Armstrong

), 3:30

2013-11-16 WSR@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (12) (

E. Cornel

,

B. Devlin

), 17:18 (PP)

2013-11-23 NIAG@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (13) , 19:51 (EN)

2013-11-28 BELV@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (14) (

M. Clarke

,

J. Tanus

), 2:02 (PP)

2013-11-30 LDN@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (15) (

C. Seymour

,

S. Varga

), 7:10

2013-12-28 OSH@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (16) (

J. MacDonald

), 7:29

2014-01-02 BAR@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (17) , 4:56 (PS)

2014-01-02 BAR@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (18) (

C. Boland

), 13:05

2014-01-11 NB@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (19) (

H. Garlent

,

E. Cornel

), 4:24

2014-01-23 SBY@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (20) (

H. Garlent

,

C. Seymour

), 17:38 (PP)

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (21) (

M. Clarke

,

H. Garlent

), 11:49

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (22) (

E. Cornel

), 8:24

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (23) (

N. Armstrong

,

A. Stefano

), 10:42 (PP)

2014-02-04 PBO@OTT

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (24) (

A. Stefano

), 15:27

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (25) (

E. Cornel

,

H. Garlent

), 1:13 (PP)

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (26) (

E. Cornel

), 7:53

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (27) (

E. Cornel

), 9:14 (PP)

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (28) (

C. Boland

), 17:26

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (29) (

E. Cornel

), 14:53

2014-02-13 BELV@PBO

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (30) (

B. Devlin

,

N. Armstrong

), 19:17 (PP)

2014-02-20 SAG@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (31) (

M. Clarke

,

J. MacDonald

), 19:20 (EN)

2014-02-21 PBO@MISS

2

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (32) (

E. Cornel

,

H. Garlent

), 9:53

2014-02-27 OSH@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (33) , 19:58 (EN)

2014-03-01 PBO@SAR

OT

.

N. Ritchie

, (34) (

E. Cornel

,

B. Devlin

), 0:46

2014-03-02 PBO@LDN

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (35) (

J. Tanus

), 18:18 (EN)

2014-03-06 KGN@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (36) (

H. Garlent

), 6:31

2014-03-06 KGN@PBO

OT

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (37) , 0:31

2014-03-08 OTT@PBO

1

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (38) (

H. Garlent

), 13:18

2014-03-11 NIAG@PBO

3

. PBO

N. Ritchie

, (39) (

B. Devlin

,

S. Varga

), 19:49 (EN)

Thanks minister. Interesting stat to look at especially when comparing prospects. Saw the post in the Ehlers thread. Good food for thought.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Figured Ritchie would not be a qualcomp player because he's so damn big. However, he did a lot less in round two.

It was cool that he upset Bennett's team, but in no way does that make Ritchie a better player. Although that's not being discussed i think.

My concerns about Ritchie has always been fitness level and injury history. The two factors may put him in the high risk power forward category.

That being said, he's not a physical beast like Lucic nor a star scorer like Nash. But I think that's been well covered. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Ritchie has worked hard to figure out how to put himself in this position in the draft and that's applause-worthy.

[Absent Canuck]

Ritchie's fart would blow Ehlers off his feet...

Why were Ritchie and Ehlers were together in their bare feet? On second thought I dont want to know you know that.

[Absent Canuck]

Since I was asked…. though not too politely….

Conclusion: Ritchie has little difference in level of production regardless of the quality of competition.

Goals Vs Top 6 Teams ( Guelph, Erie, London, Sault Ste Marie, Oshawa, Kingston) = 14

Goals Vs Bottom 6 Teams ( Sarnia, Kitchener, Ottawa, Belleville, Mississauga, Niagara) = 16

2013-09-19 KGN@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (1) (S. Pierog, S. Varga), 17:05

2013-09-26 PLY@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (2) (A. Stefano, J. Maguire), 6:18

2013-09-26 PLY@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (3) (J. Tanus, E. Cornel), 15:53 (PP)

2013-09-27 PBO@KIT 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (4) (M. Clarke, N. Armstrong), 15:57 (PP)

2013-09-27 PBO@KIT 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (5) (N. Armstrong), 15:23 (PP)

2013-10-17 MISS@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (6) (E. Cornel, J. Tanus), 11:52

2013-11-07 KIT@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (7) (N. Armstrong), 0:21

2013-11-07 KIT@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (8) (S. Pierog), 13:50 (SH)

2013-11-08 PBO@ SBY 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (9) (E. Cornel, J. Tanus), 8:49 (PP)

2013-11-09 PBO@SSM 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (10) (J. MacDonald), 7:33

2013-11-15 PBO@GUE 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (11) (N. Armstrong), 3:30

2013-11-16 WSR@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (12) (E. Cornel, B. Devlin), 17:18 (PP)

2013-11-23 NIAG@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (13) , 19:51 (EN)

2013-11-28 BELV@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (14) (M. Clarke, J. Tanus), 2:02 (PP)

2013-11-30 LDN@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (15) (C. Seymour, S. Varga), 7:10

2013-12-28 OSH@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (16) (J. MacDonald), 7:29

2014-01-02 BAR@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (17) , 4:56 (PS)

2014-01-02 BAR@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (18) (C. Boland), 13:05

2014-01-11 NB@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (19) (H. Garlent, E. Cornel), 4:24

2014-01-23 SBY@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (20) (H. Garlent, C. Seymour), 17:38 (PP)

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (21) (M. Clarke, H. Garlent), 11:49

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (22) (E. Cornel), 8:24

2014-01-30 OTT@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (23) (N. Armstrong, A. Stefano), 10:42 (PP)

2014-02-04 PBO@OTT 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (24) (A. Stefano), 15:27

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (25) (E. Cornel, H. Garlent), 1:13 (PP)

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (26) (E. Cornel), 7:53

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (27) (E. Cornel), 9:14 (PP)

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (28) (C. Boland), 17:26

2014-02-07 PBO@KGN 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (29) (E. Cornel), 14:53

2014-02-13 BELV@PBO 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (30) (B. Devlin, N. Armstrong), 19:17 (PP)

2014-02-20 SAG@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (31) (M. Clarke, J. MacDonald), 19:20 (EN)

2014-02-21 PBO@MISS 2. PBO N. Ritchie, (32) (E. Cornel, H. Garlent), 9:53

2014-02-27 OSH@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (33) , 19:58 (EN)

2014-03-01 PBO@SAR OT. N. Ritchie, (34) (E. Cornel, B. Devlin), 0:46

2014-03-02 PBO@LDN 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (35) (J. Tanus), 18:18 (EN)

2014-03-06 KGN@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (36) (H. Garlent), 6:31

2014-03-06 KGN@PBO OT. PBO N. Ritchie, (37) , 0:31

2014-03-08 OTT@PBO 1. PBO N. Ritchie, (38) (H. Garlent), 13:18

2014-03-11 NIAG@PBO 3. PBO N. Ritchie, (39) (B. Devlin, S. Varga), 19:49 (EN)

You forgot to mention you changed the parameters of your study. You seem to be in the habit of changing the playing field when one particular exchange doesnt go your way.

The Ehlers parameters was how well he did vs Val d'or in the playoffs. In a small 7 game slice to indicate he 'only' got 8 points in 7 games.

Good ol Richtie played two playoff series and you could have very easily compared both series or one, albeit they were weaker competition than Val-D'or was, its the best you have. You no doubt did just that............and found his stats lacking.

So now you change the parameters to goals specifically, and go back to the regular season to slice and dice a new set of parameters that are completely different.

A whole set of teams vs one Val-d'or. A whole set of different games at differnt times during the season instead of 7 back to back games against one team in the playoffs which of course is also a whole different animal.

I look forward to your new tap danced stats on the Virtanen thread where you no doubt compare his stats too. You might have to dig real hard. Perhaps you go figure out where Virtanen scored his goals , then cross reference them to left handed goalies only to pad his totals. Good luck and happy bull #@$#@ing.

[asian player]

Why were Ritchie and Ehlers were together in their bare feet? On second thought I dont want to know you know that.

"Would" means I was speaking hypothetically so say Ritchie was testing his vertical at the combine and he lets one rip, Ehlers would be knocked over

[Absent Canuck]

For you Ritchie fans. Here are the objective stats that compare apples to apples to Ministers 'objective' critique of Ehlers . Since the Minister took great pains to dissect Ehlers performance against Val d'or specifically and he 'forgot' to look at Ritchie or Virtanens stats so we could compare them, allow me. You guys draw your own conclusions.

Ritchies Petes had 70 points and went up against Kingston who were in their same division and had 82. A good team, but no powerhouse or extra ordinary by any stretch. The Petes were 12th out of 20 teams in the standings and Kingston was 7th.

Ritchie got off to a slow start but improved as the series went on. Zero points in the first 2 games. Then he had a whopping 8 in the next 5.

Well done

Ritchie then faced the 90 point Oshawa Generals. Not as good as Val d'or but a solid team nonetheless. They were 5th in the league.

Richie attained 2 assists in 4 games and was a minus 6 as the Petes were swept. If its any consolation Oshawa was swept the following series.

Ritchie had 10 points in 11 games both series combined.

Ehlers had 8 points in the 7 games against the champion Val-dor who were 3rd overall , right behind Halifax.

This is the same level playing field in which Minister should have compared them. Take from it what you will. In my opinion Ritchie did well and then hit a snag. Nothing to hang his head about.

[Absent Canuck]

"Would" means I was speaking hypothetically so say Ritchie was testing his vertical at the combine and he lets one rip, Ehlers would be knocked over

LOL. Ok you win.

[Outsiders]

My order would be

1) one of the top 5 fall

2) Ritchie

3) Virtanen

[BanTSN]

Stats-schmatz, how about looking at how these kids play? Ritchie and Ehlers are polar opposites, so who gives a crap how their stats measure up?

The Canucks will want Ritchie if the want to insert yet more size into their lineup. To me he has Latendresse written all over him though. Maybe Clowe. Wouldn't get too excited, as he's chunkin' and will be hard-pressed to lug that weight around for a full NHL season anytime soon. So he'll need to develop further and that will expose him to more potential to get hurt.

If everything goes right, he'd be a Clowe. Whoopdee-do.

[Absent Canuck]

Stats-schmatz, how about looking at how these kids play? Ritchie and Ehlers are polar opposites, so who gives a crap how their stats measure up?

The Canucks will want Ritchie if the want to insert yet more size into their lineup. To me he has Latendresse written all over him though. Maybe Clowe. Wouldn't get too excited, as he's chunkin' and will be hard-pressed to lug that weight around for a full NHL season anytime soon. So he'll need to develop further and that will expose him to more potential to get hurt.

If everything goes right, he'd be a Clowe. Whoopdee-do.

Excellent analysis ! Snide has always been the cornerstone of any winning argument.

Who needs stats ? Lets be honest. Why do they even keep score of the game? We should just look at how they play and ignore how effective the outcomes of their effort are.

What to do? Hmm......... I know ! Perhaps you could agree to a 'rock-paper-scissors' method of choosing between the three.

[Moonshinefe]

Figured Ritchie would not be a qualcomp player because he's so damn big. However, he did a lot less in round two.

It was cool that he upset Bennett's team, but in no way does that make Ritchie a better player. Although that's not being discussed i think.

My concerns about Ritchie has always been fitness level and injury history. The two factors may put him in the high risk power forward category.

That being said, he's not a physical beast like Lucic nor a star scorer like Nash. But I think that's been well covered. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Ritchie has worked hard to figure out how to put himself in this position in the draft and that's applause-worthy.

Who do you feel we should draft?

[Moonshinefe]

Injury issues are certainly a concern this season I should hope. Given all the bloody injuries on the Canucks, I think player durability / iron man-esque style of play should be a major factor in picking our prospects. Even if that means we merely get a 20-30 goal scorer instead of a 30-40 goal scorer. Injuries have completely destroyed this team recently.

Edit: I'm sure Linden's direction for the team and who the next coach is going to be will be a major factor too.

[Razors_Edge]

Injury issues are certainly a concern this season I should hope. Given all the bloody injuries on the Canucks, I think player durability / iron man-esque style of play should be a major factor in picking our prospects. Even if that means we merely get a 20-30 goal scorer instead of a 30-40 goal scorer. Injuries have completely destroyed this team recently.

Edit: I'm sure Linden's direction for the team and who the next coach is going to be will be a major factor too.

Unless the injuries are concussion related they are pretty meaningless, every day you drive a car you stand a chance of being in an accident, luckily most of us never are or if we have one its a minor fender bender, sometimes though we are not so lucky. We get hit by a puck and break our jaw or ankle, or get taken out knee on knee or run into the boards and wreck something, just because someone has an accident doesn't make them fragile. Lots of players have an injury then never have another. Some are unlucky and have a bunch in a row. We just have to blame the hockey gods for that.

But if you are a compact car and are playing with trucks if you do get in an accident its you that's most likely to get hurt not that Mack Truck.

Cheers! Go Canucks

[Absent Canuck]

Injury issues are certainly a concern this season I should hope. Given all the bloody injuries on the Canucks, I think player durability / iron man-esque style of play should be a major factor in picking our prospects. Even if that means we merely get a 20-30 goal scorer instead of a 30-40 goal scorer. Injuries have completely destroyed this team recently.

Edit: I'm sure Linden's direction for the team and who the next coach is going to be will be a major factor too.

The 'iron men' of the franchise is a soft euro center who might be 6ft 2 but is 185 pounds soaking wet. He has never lost a fight however. The previous great iron man was a 5ft 11 185 center who played with yet another soft swedish euro winging captain .

If you want an iron man, I wouldnt suggest drafting a big guy known for crashing , banging and fighting.

[LeanBeef]

If everything goes right, he'd be a Clowe. Whoopdee-do.

Well he won't since, the two play different from one another... However, I wouldn't mind Ritchie becoming a top powerforward who can pot in 60 points, hit hard, setup teammates, fight, intimidate, and provide solid leadership.

[guntrix]

You've seen nothing yet. The ones with the Ehlers erections said he's a mix of Markus Naslund and Pavel Bure.

True but why would anyone trade up to take Ritchie when you could get one of Drasaitl, Dal Colle or maybe even one the upper three if things go right.

[Ihatetomatoes]

You forgot to mention you changed the parameters of your study. You seem to be in the habit of changing the playing field when one particular exchange doesnt go your way.

The Ehlers parameters was how well he did vs Val d'or in the playoffs. In a small 7 game slice to indicate he 'only' got 8 points in 7 games.

Good ol Richtie played two playoff series and you could have very easily compared both series or one, albeit they were weaker competition than Val-D'or was, its the best you have. You no doubt did just that............and found his stats lacking.

So now you change the parameters to goals specifically, and go back to the regular season to slice and dice a new set of parameters that are completely different.

A whole set of teams vs one Val-d'or. A whole set of different games at differnt times during the season instead of 7 back to back games against one team in the playoffs which of course is also a whole different animal.

I look forward to your new tap danced stats on the Virtanen thread where you no doubt compare his stats too. You might have to dig real hard. Perhaps you go figure out where Virtanen scored his goals , then cross reference them to left handed goalies only to pad his totals. Good luck and happy bull #@$#@ing.

Your reading comprehension is lacking bud.

In the original post he showed Ehlers GOALS for against top 5 teams vs bottom 5 teams. The exact same parameters as this Ritchie analysis, nothing is different.

Bottom 5 - 26 goals

Top 5 - 3 goals

Someone then brought up Ehlers 28 points in the playoffs and minister broke that down by series. He even stated how it was a good total.

Your love affair with Ehlers is blinding you from reality and its getting annoying how you attack anyone that says anything potentially negative towards him.

[Razors_Edge]

Double Standard. Canucks fans have been comparing Ehlers too Pavel Bure,

Anyone who compares Ehlers to Pavel has obviously never seen Bure play. Even Wayne said the one player he would liked to have played with was Pavel, he was by far the best player to ever lace up skates.

His speed and shot were amazing, he could cut corners on a dime and give 5 cents change, the game is faster today but there is still nobody that has his kind of acceleration and shot.

The fun part about Bure was, he could bench press more than anyone else on the team. He was never afraid to mix it up, he never skated away from a fight and didn't want someone else fighting his battles for him.

When he was on the ice everyone was focused on him and he still managed 3 or 4 breakaways per game.

Yup there is nobody like Bure!!!

Go Canucks

[Razors_Edge]

Nobody can play at 230. I think Ritchie is far better served to play at 215 or 220 at the most.

I can think of quite a few players that have done well at 230 or more

But I will just mention #66 Mario Lemieux , I can't imagine anyone here complaining about him!

Richie is just a kid, Comparing him to grown players that have been in the NHL for years is absurd. To say he is not Lucic or Nash or whomever is obviously correct.

The question is who will he be 5 years from now.

He had a couple of injuries in the past, that of course have had an impact on his development. But if he goes the next 5 years injury free, he could easily be better than Getzlaf, Lucic or Nash!

If he didn't have the injuries he would be considered for 1st overall, at least one scout still thinks he belongs there now!

I don't think he is going to be the next Mario Lemieux, but with a few injury free seasons, this kid is going to be dangerous.

I really don't want to see him coming down the ice in a L.A. jersey, that would be .....

Go Canucks

[BanTSN]

Excellent analysis ! Snide has always been the cornerstone of any winning argument.

Who needs stats ? Lets be honest. Why do they even keep score of the game? We should just look at how they play and ignore how effective the outcomes of their effort are.

What to do? Hmm......... I know ! Perhaps you could agree to a 'rock-paper-scissors' method of choosing between the three.

Or you can use your freaking EYES?

Virtanen's just as fast and skilled as Ehlers, he scores in more ways, has a better shot and is way harder to play against, but isn't as skinny or as weak or as one-dimensional and he doesn't need Drouin, nor a weak Q to pad his 'omg staaaaaats.'

So it's between Ritchie and Virtanen. They're up there at 6-7 anyway, while Ehlers is 9-10. So i'm not sure why there's so much talk about your precious, even though this is a Ritchie thread. I think Linden's been saying he wants a player like Virtanen on his team. Size, strength, speed, grit. If Dal Colle doesn't fall, and I doubt he will, the Canucks should just pick this Virtanen kid. He won't disappoint. His upside is more attainable because of his elite speed.