Was Virtanen mismanaged here?

[5Fivehole0]

On 9/8/2020 at 3:34 PM, Robert Long said:

No.

 

At some point a guy gets enough chances that its mostly on him and thats where Jake is at. He's not terrible or a "bust" just not what you would have hoped for a 6th overall pick.

 

 

I feel like he's capitalized on opportunities and then doesn't get rewarded. He'll score on the first line and then be sent back to play with Beagle

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I feel like he's capitalized on opportunities and then doesn't get rewarded. He'll score on the first line and then be sent back to play with Beagle

That's because Travis knows once he scores he's taking the rest of the night off. 

[5Fivehole0]

9 hours ago, Baggins said:

That's because Travis knows once he scores he's taking the rest of the night off. 

I don't get why people are confused. Look who he was on the ice with for his goals. Do I wish he hit more? Yes, but that's obviously a coaching issue, and how he's been deployed. Virt is not a player you quit on

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I don't get why people are confused. Look who he was on the ice with for his goals. Do I wish he hit more? Yes, but that's obviously a coaching issue, and how he's been deployed. Virt is not a player you quit on

I don't get why people are confused either. Neither Willie or Travis has discouraged Virtanen from hitting, only "chasing" hits. There's a difference. Both coaches said repeatedly they wanted him hard on the forecheck and hard on the backcheck including finishing checks. That actually requires effort on the players part though. His inconsistent effort has nothing to with coaching. Showing up to camp in poor shape has nothing to do with coaching. His going out partying just before going into the bubble has nothing to do with coaching. Jake's issue seems to be his own lack of work ethic and intelligence. He just doesn't get it and lacks the drive to improve. He could easily be a top six player if he only had the drive and commitment to do so. After 5 years he still seems to be treating it as a game rather than a job. The coaches job is to get the most out of his players abilities. What's been asked of Jake is well within his abilities. If a player is simply unwilling to make the effort what is the coach to do? How many times do you have to scratch a player and how long do you wait for that penny to drop? Sometimes a player needs the wake up call of being traded. Even then some don't wake up. Some players are just happy playing rather than striving to be the best they can.

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I don't get why people are confused. Look who he was on the ice with for his goals. Do I wish he hit more? Yes, but that's obviously a coaching issue, and how he's been deployed. Virt is not a player you quit on

So he only can be one dimensional then?  Put me in with ____________ and I can score.  You want a guy who can elevate others, not depend on them.  Brock gets moved around...it happens when you're trying to get some going.  Virt's not special in that he has to have ideal conditions or.   He should be more than just focused on scoring...Petey is a good role model for him.  Put your head down and skate HARD to back check.  He does on occasion but, often, he's a step behind on things so that's why he's playing catch up.  The saving grace is...he can.  His speed is something to consider too, as he has that.  But he has to be consistent with all of it.  Currently, he's still not.

 

It's not about quitting on him....it's about him not quitting.  If every other guy is expected to give it all at both ends of the ice, he's part of that.  

[Smashian Kassian]

In hearing Benning talk it seemed pretty obvious they are going to look to package Jake (& maybe Stech) to get rid of some money. And I think it's probably the right thing.

[oldnews]

I liked Benning's comments regardless of what they intend/decide to do with Virtanen.  It's never a bad idea to let a player like Virtanen know that you expect more - that he has one option this offseason = put the work in.

I'd also understand if Green's patience is running thin.  Certainly Green understands what needs to be done, probably better than anyone.

 

But I also 'believe' in looking at Virtanen's objective outcomes - not simply anecdoting.

His regular season - was obviously fine - the kind of performance the team 'expects' of Virtanen - 5ht in goal scoring, 4th in hits, 4th in takeaways, 17th in ice time = good steps forward for Virtanen.

 

Was he ready for/expecting to go to a bubble for a playoff run?  Who knows.  Was his performance acceptable?

 

 

Had the 3rd best 'underlying'/'possession' numbers on the team in the playoffs - and arguably the best when adjusted for deployment (ie EP had 0.7% better corsi, but higher ozone starts).  He was +2 - again, not bad, all things considered - tied for 2nd among forwards - MIller was +3, Pettersson was also +2.

 

One of only 3 Canucks with a positve turnover differential - Motte was an unreal +10 (17 takeaways, 7 giveaways),  Sutter was +5 (12/7), Virtanen +1 (6/5).

 

His 36 hits was tied for 41st in the NHL playoffs.   Again, Motte was 12th with 61, and Miller/Roussel tied 33rd with 40.

 

So those are the 'positives' - in spite of a lot of misperception imo - he is a good 'possession' player, and in spite of the storyline that he lacks hockey intelligence, his outcomes suggest otherwise.

 

What was disappointing?  Obviously his 2 goals in 16 games (and 16 shots) - translate to 10g/82 - a slower scoring pace than regular season 18g in 69 games (20+ g/82 pace).

 

However, if I were to nitpick the entire forward group through the playoffs, Virtanen would probably not end up at the top of the 'disappointment' list.  None of the 'usual suspects' would.  If Virtanen were in fact the biggest disappointment, then I think you're looking at a pretty damn good playoffs - and imo that's exactly what the team had.  I keep hearing how much more the team needed from the bottom six, but that strikes me as borderline absurd.

 

Pearson had 1 g, 1 a in 7 games vs Vegas.    Both of those were empty net points - a goal and an assist on a Horvat empty net goal.

Horvat had 4g but not a single assist.

Toffoli had 1 pt in the last 5 games vs Vegas (none 5 on 5), after a big first game.

They needed more secondary scoring from their '2nd line'  = 2 pts combined 5 on 5 in the last 6 games - however - I don't think that dip in production can be separated from the fact the lineup had a rookie and sophomore centering two of the other lines, and a number of key top 6 forwards on the limp.

 

Is any of that enough for me to determine it's time to 'give up' on Virtanen?  Absolutely not.   Does it come down to being a distraction and annoyance in the group - a player that didn't 'buy in' to the extent of his team-mates?  Possibly - but who knows where the line gets drawn in that sense - whether there is any further room for tolerance.

Whether Virtanen is/should be moved, imo - might depend entirely on the return, and perhaps as important as the value he'd return, would be the form of the return.  You never know, but I'm skeptical that would exceed the value of retaining him, or come in a form that makes sense - so my guess would be that Virtanen is a Canuck in training camp next year.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by oldnews

[messier's_elbow]

They rushed him, but they righted the ship on him, so it’s up to him now to show as a professional. He has all the tools. 

[sassbs]

9 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I don't get why people are confused. Look who he was on the ice with for his goals. Do I wish he hit more? Yes, but that's obviously a coaching issue, and how he's been deployed. Virt is not a player you quit on

yeaaaa I am confused about your thought process on jake.  This has nothing to do with coaching and everything to do with self motivation and determination.  Give the coaches a difficult decision as to whom takes 2nd line RW.  
Reminds me on the debate with goldy.  “Goldy should play with bo, goldy should play with the sedins”.  If you can’t put in the effort then you don’t deserve those top tier minutes and should really go frack yourself because the gift he has been given is going to waste.

 

This dip sh!!t is partying it up, hanging with  beiber, god knows what else....  what a waste.  
 

it’s extremely frustrating as we all know what he can bring to the table... his potential is there, he just doesn’t apply himself

Edited September 14, 2020 by sassbs

[Law of Goalies]

On 9/9/2020 at 7:46 AM, kilgore said:

The thing that is troubling is that he himself must hear the rumblings. He might even hear it  more because he has friends and family here. So you'd THINK that he'd be extra motivated at some point to grow up and go all in. The latest was getting in trouble going out to clubs during COVID, then coming in out of shape, being scratched for the first games.  All of that SHOULD light a fire under any player. Especially going into the playoffs.  The perfect opportunity to counter all the haters and show everyone how you've matured and are committed.  Heck even he'd have gotten in trouble for being out of position because he'd been dishing out so  many hits, I'd welcome that. Or crashed the net once too often and gotten a suspension.  SOMETHING to indicate he was at least putting up a fight to keep his job here. 

 

I don't get it. He could also rake in millions more $ for himself.  I think he's like a lot of guys I've known, punching in and out at work, not really caring about the job, because your real life is outside of work.  He's just not that dedicated to learning the game any more than is necessary to scrape by in the NHL, which is still in the millions of dollars.  I just hope some sucker GM will bite on him. Right now, I'd offer him up free + LE. 

You would welcome that out of position hit but his coach won't, then he will be benched and then won't make that hit. Then it goes through the same vicious cycle.

[erkayloomeh]

19 hours ago, oldnews said:

I liked Benning's comments regardless of what they intend/decide to do with Virtanen.  It's never a bad idea to let a player like Virtanen know that you expect more - that he has one option this offseason = put the work in.

I'd also understand if Green's patience is running thin.  Certainly Green understands what needs to be done, probably better than anyone.

 

But I also 'believe' in looking at Virtanen's objective outcomes - not simply anecdoting.

His regular season - was obviously fine - the kind of performance the team 'expects' of Virtanen - 5ht in goal scoring, 4th in hits, 4th in takeaways, 17th in ice time = good steps forward for Virtanen.

 

Was he ready for/expecting to go to a bubble for a playoff run?  Who knows.  Was his performance acceptable?

 

 

Had the 3rd best 'underlying'/'possession' numbers on the team in the playoffs - and arguably the best when adjusted for deployment (ie EP had 0.7% better corsi, but higher ozone starts).  He was +2 - again, not bad, all things considered - tied for 2nd among forwards - MIller was +3, Pettersson was also +2.

 

One of only 3 Canucks with a positve turnover differential - Motte was an unreal +10 (17 takeaways, 7 giveaways),  Sutter was +5 (12/7), Virtanen +1 (6/5).

 

His 36 hits was tied for 41st in the NHL playoffs.   Again, Motte was 12th with 61, and Miller/Roussel tied 33rd with 40.

 

So those are the 'positives' - in spite of a lot of misperception imo - he is a good 'possession' player, and in spite of the storyline that he lacks hockey intelligence, his outcomes suggest otherwise.

 

What was disappointing?  Obviously his 2 goals in 16 games (and 16 shots) - translate to 10g/82 - a slower scoring pace than regular season 18g in 69 games (20+ g/82 pace).

 

However, if I were to nitpick the entire forward group through the playoffs, Virtanen would probably not end up at the top of the 'disappointment' list.  None of the 'usual suspects' would.  If Virtanen were in fact the biggest disappointment, then I think you're looking at a pretty damn good playoffs - and imo that's exactly what the team had.  I keep hearing how much more the team needed from the bottom six, but that strikes me as borderline absurd.

 

Pearson had 1 g, 1 a in 7 games vs Vegas.    Both of those were empty net points - a goal and an assist on a Horvat empty net goal.

Horvat had 4g but not a single assist.

Toffoli had 1 pt in the last 5 games vs Vegas (none 5 on 5), after a big first game.

They needed more secondary scoring from their '2nd line'  = 2 pts combined 5 on 5 in the last 6 games - however - I don't think that dip in production can be separated from the fact the lineup had a rookie and sophomore centering two of the other lines, and a number of key top 6 forwards on the limp.

 

Is any of that enough for me to determine it's time to 'give up' on Virtanen?  Absolutely not.   Does it come down to being a distraction and annoyance in the group - a player that didn't 'buy in' to the extent of his team-mates?  Possibly - but who knows where the line gets drawn in that sense - whether there is any further room for tolerance.

Whether Virtanen is/should be moved, imo - might depend entirely on the return, and perhaps as important as the value he'd return, would be the form of the return.  You never know, but I'm skeptical that would exceed the value of retaining him, or come in a form that makes sense - so my guess would be that Virtanen is a Canuck in training camp next year.

 

 

Plus 10 post 

Talk about backing things up with facts. 

If he gets traded JB will regret it.

[5Fivehole0]

20 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

So he only can be one dimensional then?  Put me in with ____________ and I can score.  You want a guy who can elevate others, not depend on them.  Brock gets moved around...it happens when you're trying to get some going.  Virt's not special in that he has to have ideal conditions or.   He should be more than just focused on scoring...Petey is a good role model for him.  Put your head down and skate HARD to back check.  He does on occasion but, often, he's a step behind on things so that's why he's playing catch up.  The saving grace is...he can.  His speed is something to consider too, as he has that.  But he has to be consistent with all of it.  Currently, he's still not.

 

It's not about quitting on him....it's about him not quitting.  If every other guy is expected to give it all at both ends of the ice, he's part of that.  

Honestly, I don't care where he succeeds so long as he succeeds. If he's a Kunitz or a Maroon, so be it. Enough with the politics, place him where he succeeds.

[5Fivehole0]

If Benning had traded for Jake, or he was a big signing, he'd be stapled to the top 2 lines ala Eriksson. 

[Chickenspear]

18 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

If Benning had traded for Jake, or he was a big signing, he'd be stapled to the top 2 lines ala Eriksson. 

Maybe, but if Jake were signed to a big contract, ala Eriksson, he would have already proven to be a solid top 6 player. As of right now, he's got the tools to become a top 6 player, just not the consistency, or drive.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Chickenspear

[oldnews]

Green has invested a lot of time developing Virtanen in the right way.

 

Took his focus off trying to be a top 6 scoring winger - and made a two-way player out of Virtanen - focusing on his game without the puck.

 

Something the vast majority of people on these boards appear oblivious to.

 

Was the investment 'successful'?

 

Well, aside from the points about made regarding his playoff outcomes, lets look at Virtanen's career trajectory thus far.

 

2017/18

Virtanen lead the team with 51 takeaways (20 more than anyone else).

He was 19th on the team in ozone starts, and had the 9th best corsi.

Was 3rd in hits with 156, and 7th in goal scoring playing 12 minutes a game, all of them at even strength.

 

2018/19

Lead the team again with 46 takeaways (and a +24 differential).  The laughable thing about this - is the story about lacking effort or hockey intelligence - when reading the play and engaging - getting in passing lanes or separating players from the puck - is an area of the game he clearly excels - one of the more challenging parts of the game - and does so in limited minutes.

Again - he was 23rd on the team in ozone starts, but 4th in goal scoring (13 of 15 at even strength) - and played less than 15 minutes/game.

Was second on the team (to Motte) with 154 hits.

 

2019/20

Tied for 3rd in takeaways (Miller 52, Myers 42).

4th in hits with 102.

5th in goal scoring with 18, playing 13 minutes/game.

Again = 18th in ozone starts - meaning he played a large part of his season on a checking line, with occasional double-duty moving up the lineup.  Obviously, when he did, he was very productive.

 

But here's the thing.

 

You can't, on the one hand emphasize how important it is for a young player like him to develop his defensive game, to focus on those details, and utilize him for the most part to this point of his career, as a 3rd line winger on a team where the 3rd  line leans significantly towards shutdown/matchup duty - and then minimize his development in those senses by reducing the analysis of his performance to mere production (which has been entirely respectable in context). 

 

And beyond that, the storylines of a player lacking hockey intelligence or physicality is simply refuted/strongly contradicted by his actual outcomes.  Virtanen has played with solid veteran bottom six defensive forwards - who themselves are under-appreciated/rated in general - and who deserve some credit in his outcomes - but he's one of many Canucks (essentially role players) who have been constantly sandbagged and generally misrepresented in this market (not just CDC, but pretentious 'analytics' posturers and media talking heads as well.

 

Bottom lines imo:

1) the team invested a high pick - and a reasonable amount of development focus on Virtanen - in a somewhat unconventional sense.  The value of that is not obvious - in other words - it's highly likely that the return on him would not equal his actual value to the organization.  Dumping him for a 2nd round pick imo would be a horrible idea, with the misperception that most 2nd round picks turn out to be Thatcher Demkos.  That's simply not the case, even with the best of drafting franchises.  His value to the franchise is far greater than a 20ish% longshot.

2) his outcomes are far better than generally represented - and more importantly - his defensive development is a key indicator of a young player that is more likely to be successful moving forward than young players that did not / do not have that experience - of harder than typical minutes - as a young player. 

 

It's important not to dwell simply on moronic Seinfeldian standards (ie I've found a single, fatal flaw in a person = 'big hands').   Most people may be losing some patience with him - but I think that's over-stated and small-sampling on a single, first playoffs.   I think the 'better' perspective is to realize that he is still a young-minded young man - he may require more maturation - but for those of us that realize that most men don't grow a brain until the age of 25, 24 would be a horrible time line on which to part with this player for an underpayment.   This is the type of player you target - if you are looking at opposing franchises - players that you are looking to poach.  Let's not be on the losing end of that, prematurely - particularly when he represents the kind of player that is not easy to acquire.  He has lethal north-south speed, he's physical and can put the puck in the net, he's been developed in the right way, and in spite of the growing pains, he seems to respect and respond well to TG.  Give him another critical year.

 

[xereau]

On 9/12/2020 at 9:43 PM, 5Fivehole0 said:

I feel like he's capitalized on opportunities and then doesn't get rewarded. He'll score on the first line and then be sent back to play with Beagle

Floats around and allows easy entries for a period, is what he gets demoted for, not scoring.

[JM_]

46 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Green has invested a lot of time developing Virtanen in the right way.

 

Took his focus off trying to be a top 6 scoring winger - and made a two-way player out of Virtanen - focusing on his game without the puck.

 

Something the vast majority of people on these boards appear oblivious to.

 

Was the investment 'successful'?

 

Well, aside from the points about made regarding his playoff outcomes, lets look at Virtanen's career trajectory thus far.

 

2017/18

Virtanen lead the team with 51 takeaways (20 more than anyone else).

He was 19th on the team in ozone starts, and had the 9th best corsi.

Was 3rd in hits with 156, and 7th in goal scoring playing 12 minutes a game, all of them at even strength.

 

2018/19

Lead the team again with 46 takeaways (and a +24 differential).  The laughable thing about this - is the story about lacking effort or hockey intelligence - when reading the play and engaging - getting in passing lanes or separating players from the puck - is an area of the game he clearly excels - one of the more challenging parts of the game - and does so in limited minutes.

Again - he was 23rd on the team in ozone starts, but 4th in goal scoring (13 of 15 at even strength) - and played less than 15 minutes/game.

Was second on the team (to Motte) with 154 hits.

 

2019/20

Tied for 3rd in takeaways (Miller 52, Myers 42).

4th in hits with 102.

5th in goal scoring with 18, playing 13 minutes/game.

Again = 18th in ozone starts - meaning he played a large part of his season on a checking line, with occasional double-duty moving up the lineup.  Obviously, when he did, he was very productive.

 

But here's the thing.

 

You can't, on the one hand emphasize how important it is for a young player like him to develop his defensive game, to focus on those details, and utilize him for the most part to this point of his career, as a 3rd line winger on a team where the 3rd  line leans significantly towards shutdown/matchup duty - and then minimize his development in those senses by reducing the analysis of his performance to mere production (which has been entirely respectable in context). 

 

And beyond that, the storylines of a player lacking hockey intelligence or physicality is simply refuted/strongly contradicted by his actual outcomes.  Virtanen has played with solid veteran bottom six defensive forwards - who themselves are under-appreciated/rated in general - and who deserve some credit in his outcomes - but he's one of many Canucks (essentially role players) who have been constantly sandbagged and generally misrepresented in this market (not just CDC, but pretentious 'analytics' posturers and media talking heads as well.

 

Bottom lines imo:

1) the team invested a high pick - and a reasonable amount of development focus on Virtanen - in a somewhat unconventional sense.  The value of that is not obvious - in other words - it's highly likely that the return on him would not equal his actual value to the organization.  Dumping him for a 2nd round pick imo would be a horrible idea, with the misperception that most 2nd round picks turn out to be Thatcher Demkos.  That's simply not the case, even with the best of drafting franchises.  His value to the franchise is far greater than a 20ish% longshot.

2) his outcomes are far better than generally represented - and more importantly - his defensive development is a key indicator of a young player that is more likely to be successful moving forward than young players that did not / do not have that experience - of harder than typical minutes - as a young player. 

 

It's important not to dwell simply on moronic Seinfeldian standards (ie I've found a single, fatal flaw in a person = 'big hands').   Most people may be losing some patience with him - but I think that's over-stated and small-sampling on a single, first playoffs.   I think the 'better' perspective is to realize that he is still a young-minded young man - he may require more maturation - but for those of us that realize that most men don't grow a brain until the age of 25, 24 would be a horrible time line on which to part with this player for an underpayment.   This is the type of player you target - if you are looking at opposing franchises - players that you are looking to poach.  Let's not be on the losing end of that, prematurely - particularly when he represents the kind of player that is not easy to acquire.  He has lethal north-south speed, he's physical and can put the puck in the net, he's been developed in the right way, and in spite of the growing pains, he seems to respect and respond well to TG.  Give him another critical year.

 

but aren't these outcomes your talking about from very selected minutes by Green? Jake only plays 13 minutes per night, so someone else is picking up the slack elsewhere for him. 

 

I don't think it follows that you have to be blind to Jakes improvements to want him traded. For me, I think we've seen the best we're going to see out of him, in part because no one else has had nearly the kind of attention from Green that Jake has, and he's still mediocre in many areas. We also have a very good F group without him, so if he can be used in some way to make a significant d upgrade I'm all for it, even if he does find more of his game elsewhere.

 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

but aren't these outcomes your talking about from very selected minutes by Green? Jake only plays 13 minutes per night, so someone else is picking up the slack elsewhere for him.

 

that makes no sense.

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

that makes no sense.

how many minutes per night do you expect from a top 6? 

[oldnews]

Just now, Robert Long said:

how many minutes per night do you expect from a top 6? 

this question, likewise, makes no sense.

I'm doubtful you read the post you responded to - and if you did, you missed the point - not sure what kind of answer you're looking for, but the 'answers' to these questions are in that post.