Kings Article: 2015 Season Reviews: Richards, Muzzin, Quick, Regehr, McBain, Jones, Andreoff

[Sheng Peng]

For Kings fans, Muzzin, Quick, and Regehr represent the "battleground states" between analytics and the "eyeball test":

A buyout of Richards would be costly, but after his disastrous season, it might be worth it.

Once again, Jake Muzzin dominated statistically. Why can't he buy a break from Kings fans?

It's time for Jonathan Quick takes!

R-E-G-E-H-R, not R-E-G-H-E-R.

We'll leave jokes about The Simpsons for another day.

2014-15 Martin Jones played fewer games and stopped fewer pucks than 2013-14 Martin Jones. Who is the real Martin Jones?

Did Andy Andreoff take advantage of his opportunity this year?

Click to read more...

 

[YP44]

the richards one is fair.

 

[ADifferentTim]

Pertaining to specific players:

Mike Richards: his concussion history officially caught up with his play. Ouch. All is not lost, though. I consider missing the playoffs a blessing in disguise, especially when the entire team needs a long summer to recuperate.

Jake Muzzin: Kings fans didn't live down his D miscues for the entirety of the 2014-15 NHL season.

Jonathan Quick: beast as usual; don't overwork him.

Robyn Regehr: I hope he actually groomed and polished someone in the D corps, prior to retirement.

Jamie McBain: he's a scoring catalyst just like Tyler Toffoli; if he were Gatorade, he'd easily quench the Kings' scoring dehydration.

Martin Jones: He thrives under a strong D, just like Quick does.

Andy Andreoff: just beasting and earning his spot.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Gotta be honest, some of this is really reductive analysis from people who regularly provide great, in-depth analysis and even on-the-fly commentary.

No one sees the problem in comparing Quick to Hammond, Dubnyk, Talbot?

No one sees the problem in measuring solely possession proxies to evaluate Regehr's game (his GA/60 5v5 was only worse than McNabb and was better than Doughty et. al.; GA/60 while shorthanded better than every roster regular)?

I know you can't talk about everything in every article, but there were some glaring omissions that seem to be made in support of a thesis, which actually weakens the writeup.

Love what you guys do, just seems to be missing some counterpoints.

Edit: I'll actually say I love the Muzzin one; it took a while to load in full but love the meter

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gotta be honest, some of this is really reductive analysis from people who regularly provide great, in-depth analysis and even on-the-fly commentary.

No one sees the problem in comparing Quick to Hammond, Dubnyk, Talbot?

No one sees the problem in measuring solely possession proxies to evaluate Regehr's game (his GA/60 5v5 was only worse than McNabb and was better than Doughty et. al.; GA/60 while shorthanded better than every roster regular)?

I know you can't talk about everything in every article, but there were some glaring omissions that seem to be made in support of a thesis, which actually weakens the writeup.

Love what you guys do, just seems to be missing some counterpoints.

Edit: I'll actually say I love the Muzzin one; it took a while to load in full but love the meter

We need more articles in praise of Roman Cechmanek, because numbers.

 

[Sheng Peng]

No one sees the problem in comparing Quick to Hammond, Dubnyk, Talbot?

No one sees the problem in measuring solely possession proxies to evaluate Regehr's game (his GA/60 5v5 was only worse than McNabb and was better than Doughty et. al.; GA/60 while shorthanded better than every roster regular)?

I appreciate the kind words. I can't speak accurately for the authors of those specific articles (I can speak for the author of the Muzzin one...thanks!), but I'll try.

Some people believe that it "may be wiser to invest the money in skaters--whose performance is more predictable--and try to find the next Devan Dubnyk, rather than paying a veteran goalie $6 million for the illusion of security of net." So this is why bringing up the aforementioned goalies is useful, to demonstrate this year how teams found value between the pipes. Actually, I don't necessarily agree with Andrew, but I think that's the best way to explain any comparison between Quick and the other goalies.

Moving on: I believe that shots are more useful measurements and predictors because there's way more data. So yes, Regehr did do well in 5v5 GA/60 this year. I might've mentioned it, but I would still weigh shots far more in any assessment. Also, he was last on the team in 5v5 GA/60 from when he was traded to LA to 2014 (he was middle of the pack shorthanded). That said, an article trying to explore why he was better at this category this year would've been interesting.

We need more articles in praise of Roman Cechmanek, because numbers.

Once I get ahold of 2003-04 tape, I'll produce a 47-GIF Cecho article just for you

 

[kingsholygrail]

Yeah Regehr did what he could given what he was asked to do. We all knew he wasn't a 2nd pairing guy, but who else was going to be with the depth problems this season? Just felt like when we used to play Greene on the 2nd pair, even the 1st pair when it got bad enough.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I appreciate the kind words. I can't speak accurately for the authors of those specific articles (I can speak for the author of the Muzzin one...thanks!), but I'll try.

Some people believe that it "may be wiser to invest the money in skaters--whose performance is more predictable--and try to find the next Devan Dubnyk, rather than paying a veteran goalie $6 million for the illusion of security of net." So this is why bringing up the aforementioned goalies is useful, to demonstrate this year how teams found value between the pipes. Actually, I don't necessarily agree with Andrew, but I think that's the best way to explain any comparison between Quick and the other goalies.

Moving on: I believe that shots are more useful measurements and predictors because there's way more data. So yes, Regehr did do well in 5v5 GA/60 this year. I might've mentioned it, but I would still weigh shots far more in any assessment. Also, he was last on the team in 5v5 GA/60 from when he was traded to LA to 2014 (he was middle of the pack shorthanded). That said, an article trying to explore why he was better at this category this year would've been interesting.

First, thank you for being able to see past the criticism. I mean it when I say I enjoy what you guys do and I guess if I didn't care at all I wouldn't say anything at all!

With Quick, I get it, there's that moneyball philosophy with all but the most consistent goalies but if we're going to look at that route--going to the scrap heap until you find a guy who is worthy for the year--it bears mentioning that we went through 8 (9?) goalies in one year to find one that worked and tanked the season doing so. Dubnyk and Hammond went on miracle runs that defied their recent history; Dubnyk, to be fair, showed NHL level talent before being mired on bottom feeder teams, Hammond went on a run that defied his AHL performance, and both came crashing down to earth early in the playoffs. Talbot may be a better example similar to a guy like Jones who is possibly a starter buried behind a starter but we'd never know until we got out. I guess that irked me for two reasons: 1. it goes against 'conventional' goaltending thoughts where you keep 'the guy' (the Moneyball deal--probably fair, outside the box thinking), 2. it discounted examples to the contrary. Three teams caught lightning with guys in small samples, and teams pay a premium for the luxury of having 'the guy' for year-to-year roster consistency vs. searching all season for replacement-level goaltending.

With Regehr, I don't disagree, the guy is an absolute possession blackhole, I just think with old-school guys like him and Mitchell (I know Mitchell's #s are much better, IIRC), their game is the old notion of defense: lock guys down in your zone. They are a throwback to the glass-and-out-ers of the 80s and 90s where it was okay to not have puck skills as a d-man as long as you took care of your business. Obviously the new notion of defense is mobile and two-way, so it's probably fair to evaluate him against that criteria, I just don't think it has to come completely at the expense of what he does right. I guess it's not really an issue going forward, heh.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't get the need to critique Regehr's possession numbers when that isn't his game. It's like those who rip on Dwight King or Trevor Lewis because they don't score a ton of goals when that isn't their role on the roster.

The guy is out there to hit and block shots, two categories he was among the team leaders.

Obviously he's not going to get many zone starts in the offensive zone, and his responsibility is at his end of the ice. Taking Voynov out of the equation, Regehr was only behind Doughty and Muzzin in even strength ice time and second in shorthanded ice time.

Look at his +/- relative to other dmen on the roster. For a dman who isn't put in many offensive situations, Regehr was second among dmen with a +10 (McNabb led dmen with a +11), and he did so while averaging 20 minutes a night.

There's a certain understanding of the game some of you numbers guys need to take into consideration when your only critique is based on stats.

 

[KINGS17]

I appreciate the kind words. I can't speak accurately for the authors of those specific articles (I can speak for the author of the Muzzin one...thanks!), but I'll try.

Some people believe that it "may be wiser to invest the money in skaters--whose performance is more predictable--and try to find the next Devan Dubnyk, rather than paying a veteran goalie $6 million for the illusion of security of net." So this is why bringing up the aforementioned goalies is useful, to demonstrate this year how teams found value between the pipes. Actually, I don't necessarily agree with Andrew, but I think that's the best way to explain any comparison between Quick and the other goalies.

Moving on: I believe that shots are more useful measurements and predictors because there's way more data. So yes, Regehr did do well in 5v5 GA/60 this year. I might've mentioned it, but I would still weigh shots far more in any assessment. Also, he was last on the team in 5v5 GA/60 from when he was traded to LA to 2014 (he was middle of the pack shorthanded). That said, an article trying to explore why he was better at this category this year would've been interesting.



Once I get ahold of 2003-04 tape, I'll produce a 47-GIF Cecho article just for you

The Kings did this for years and it absolutely sucked.

The illusion of security in net? This is laughable, because Quick is easily still one of the top 5 goalies in the world, and probably the best big game goalie in the world.

 

[Sheng Peng]

With Quick, I get it, there's that moneyball philosophy with all but the most consistent goalies but if we're going to look at that route--going to the scrap heap until you find a guy who is worthy for the year--it bears mentioning that we went through 8 (9?) goalies in one year to find one that worked and tanked the season doing so.

I think you can best judge the "Money Ball" approach if the budget normally applied to goaltending is diverted toward an already-strong team. A big part of why 07-08 was such a disaster between the pipes was because LA wasn't very good in the first place.

I'll go a little further and say that the idea isn't simply relying on the scrap heap...it's more about not overinvesting in goalies at the expense of the rest of your team in a cap world. For example, what the Hawks did after Niemi won them the Cup and his contract was up. Or in contrast, the Kings investing heavily on Quick after 2012, instead of opting for Bernier and applying the savings to the rest of the team (not to mention the assets gained from trading Quick at peak value). Ideally, you develop a good goalie and replace him with another good goalie before he becomes too expensive.

Like I mentioned, I didn't necessarily agree with everything in Andrew's article on Quick--I think his deal is the least onerous of LA's bad long-term contracts. But with the salary cap, his overall point is fair. We have no problem paying a premium for year-in, year-out elite...but at this point, Quick hasn't provided that for three straight seasons.

I don't get the need to critique Regehr's possession numbers when that isn't his game.

Having the puck more than your opponent should be everybody's game. It's not the only consideration for winning hockey...but if you had the choice, why would you choose to shoot the puck less than your opponent? Of course, we may agree to disagree on that starting point.

The big reason why Regehr's possession numbers are so roundly criticized is because they're so, so bad relative to his peers. There's acknowledgment that stay-at-home defenders with tough zone starts aren't expected to dominate possession like a Jake Muzzin. Yes, it's not "his game" and that's fine. But breaking even at shot attempts is very possible for a defensive defensemen--for example, as Brad Doty cited, Willie Mitchell.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

The Kings did this for years and it absolutely sucked.

The illusion of security in net? This is laughable, because Quick is easily still one of the top 5 goalies in the world, and probably the best big game goalie in the world.

exactly