Speculation: 2020-21 News/Rumors/Roster Thread Part III

[ScoreZeGoals]

Imama should not be getting NHL minutes, no matter who the Kings are playing

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Imama. Lol. Is Raitis Ivanans unavailable?

 

[BringTheReign]

Kings are playing Ducks, Vegas and Blues in the next weeks. Those are big teams. If Kings decide to not play MacD I recommend a 4th line of Imama-JAD-Wagner. Still Amadio, Grunstrom and Moore. Keep Andersson with Vilardi-Brown.

The Ducks aren't the big, tough team they used to be. They have Deslauriers, and that's it. If MacDermid is in the lineup, that's fine.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imama. Lol. Is Raitis Ivanans unavailable?

Bring in Ryan Flinn?

 

[Mcsorley47]

Bring in Ryan Flinn?

Miss the old days ...

 

[KingsFan7824]

Kempe? Roy?

I mean it wouldn’t have been enough, but those guys plus an A prospect woulda been the cost if Cbus was looking to go a different direction.

If. When is the last time JK made a rebuilding type trade where the main piece is a prospect who hasn't played yet though? Laine for Dubois. Domi for Anderson. Panarin for Saad, Jones for Johansen. Saad for Anisimov. Hartnell for Umberger. Gaborik for Brassard. They even made the playoffs in 13-14 after trading Gaborik here, because he was damaged goods and they weren't bringing him back anyway.

In that context, Vilardi doesn't really move the needle either, as he's played fewer than 20 games, but at least he looks like he belongs in the league.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

 

[FrozenKing18]

Bring in Ryan Flinn?

No, Zeiler.

 

[kilowatt]

No, Zeiler.

please delete this mods how do i report a post

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

please delete this mods how do i report a post

You can't, we're rebuilding too

 

[kilowatt]

You can't, we're rebuilding too

rj dont do this to me

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, Zeiler.

 

[kilowatt]

 

[regulate]

Early season fancy stats update through 5 games, GA/60 (goals against per 60 minutes, even strength, lower is better, 3 or more games played)

Defensemen
Clague 0.0
Roy 1.4
Anderson 2.1
Maatta 2.9
Doughty 4.3
Walker 4.7
MacDermid 5.2

Forwards
Amadio 0.0
Moore 1.1
Athanasiou 2.1
Grundstrom 2.2
Iafallo 2.3
Lizotte 3.4
Brown 3.9
Carter 4.1
Andersson 4.2
Kopitar 4.3
Kempe 4.4
Vilardi 5.4
Wagner 6.1

 

[KingsFan7824]

When is the last time that all 5 of Kopitar, Carter, Brown, Doughty, and Quick were good at the same time? How often has it happened?

 

[Telos]

When is the last time that all 5 of Kopitar, Carter, Brown, Doughty, and Quick were good at the same time? How often has it happened?

You could probably argue the 2017-18 season. This was the year that caused the Kovalchuk signing and the false sense to Blake/Luc that we still had some compete left out of the roster (even though losing in the first round to the Golden Knights should have nixed that). Kopitar with Hart votes, Doughty with a Norris caliber year, Brown was at 61 points, Carter was in and out with injury but near PPG, and Quick has always been kinda there, defense permitting...

 

[DoktorJeep]

If I’m reading this chart right, the Kings are bad, but not far off from being fun to watch. If that’s right, I’d agree with that as a fan. They’ve not been good, but they’re more fun to watch as the season is advancing IMO. I think others who feel the same way are liking the injection of quality prospects into the game roster.

 

[All The Kings Men]

That's just xG and.... I gotta say I've been paying a lot more attention to it this season in an attempt to understand it and I do NOT agree with what the stats are telling me vs what I'm seeing with my own two eyes.

The xG models are based on shot location and shooter etc but there have been a ton of guys leading the Kings xG list that don't match with what I'm watching. Sure they may be "shooting" the puck from "high danger areas" but the shots have NOT been high danger shots and never once felt like an "expected goal".

I realize that it's all math and the point is to take a much larger sample size than a game or a shift but.... I'm not a fan of xG without context.

Like all stats.


Plus I think I saw a recent article detailing why Corsi (just shot attempts) was a more accurate predictor of future success.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Corsi Is Better At Predicting Future Goals Than Expected Goals Is – Draglikepull's hockey research

 

[kilowatt]

That's just xG and.... I gotta say I've been paying a lot more attention to it this season in an attempt to understand it and I do NOT agree with what the stats are telling me vs what I'm seeing with my own two eyes.

The xG models are based on shot location and shooter etc but there have been a ton of guys leading the Kings xG list that don't match with what I'm watching. Sure they may be "shooting" the puck from "high danger areas" but the shots have NOT been high danger shots and never once felt like an "expected goal".

I realize that it's all math and the point is to take a much larger sample size than a game or a shift but.... I'm not a fan of xG without context.

Like all stats.


Plus I think I saw a recent article detailing why Corsi (just shot attempts) was a more accurate predictor of future success.

Does xG factor in how Wagner might have five "high danger" shots per game, yet we expect to see zero goals from those "dangerous" shots?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Corsi Is Better At Predicting Future Goals Than Expected Goals Is – Draglikepull's hockey research

And that kind of lines up with what we've seen so far--the Kings aren't terrible, but they're not great, either. They're middle of the pack in Corsi. The teams they've played are above them, sometimes WAY above them. So we should expect the improvement-but-still-mediocre season we've all expected. And that in a small sample size, luck--like Roy hitting a post with seconds left, a Colorado player whiffing on a downed goalie with an empty net, Grundstrom having a puck bounce right over his backhand--makes things super strange and volatile.

 

[bland]

Its all just nonsense. You shouldn't need a set of numbers to explain, ratify, dismiss or diminish what is readily apparent to the eye. Collected data does not interpret the future, just tells the story of what already happened.

Matt Roy is the Kings defenseman least likely to be scored upon? Shocking.

MacDermid is a liability? Wow.

Kopitar and Vilardi have struggled defensively? Outrageous.

The 4th line has done a damn good job of getting the puck deep and away from their own goal? Who could guess such a thing!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Its all just nonsense. You shouldn't need a set of numbers to explain, ratify, dismiss or diminish what is readily apparent to the eye. Collected data does not interpret the future, just tells the story of what already happened.

Matt Roy is the Kings defenseman least likely to be scored upon? Shocking.

MacDermid is a liability? Wow.

Kopitar and Vilardi have struggled defensively? Outrageous.

The 4th line has done a damn good job of getting the puck deep and away from their own goal? Who could guess such a thing!

Not all of it is readily apparent to the eye, and whether you like it or not, there is some predictive value to the stats as evidenced by the Kings' runs.

As always, they're not a be-all end-all, and neither is the eye test. You need to balance both. And just like the eye test, there are problems with the stats, too, they're not perfect.

The problem lies when people are dismissive entirely of either.

And at absolute WORST, they have discussion value, as you've evidenced above.

I can't believe we need to have this talk in 2021.

 

[bland]

Not all of it is readily apparent to the eye, and whether you like it or not, there is some predictive value to the stats as evidenced by the Kings' runs.

As always, they're not a be-all end-all, and neither is the eye test. You need to balance both. And just like the eye test, there are problems with the stats, too, they're not perfect.

The problem lies when people are dismissive entirely of either.

And at absolute WORST, they have discussion value, as you've evidenced above.

I can't believe we need to have this talk in 2021.

Its the same pointless waste of time as it was when they started this nonsense. Its simply collected numbers of already available information. If any of it tells you something that you didn't already know, that's on you.

Expected goals for and against is the single stupidest concept in sports. It tells you absolutely nothing about how the game actually works. It tells you who stood where when the inquantifiable acts occur. So an so is always in a good position to succeed. Yeah, I already know that. This one guy has a hard time getting the puck across the blueline while retaining possession. Yeah, I already know that too.

The most valuable piece of advice a viewer can receive is to stop following the puck, expand your view of the ice, and look to see who does what as plays develop. If you can do that, you will never need a number again and you will know what is about to happen and who is in position to profit or suffer from it. Its just that simple, and no data will ever match it.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Its the same pointless waste of time as it was when they started this nonsense. Its simply collected numbers of already available information. If any of it tells you something that you didn't already know, that's on you.

Expected goals for and against is the single stupidest concept in sports. It tells you absolutely nothing about how the game actually works. It tells you who stood where when the inquantifiable acts occur. So an so is always in a good position to succeed. Yeah, I already know that. This one guy has a hard time getting the puck across the blueline while retaining possession. Yeah, I already know that too.

The most valuable piece of advice a viewer can receive is to stop following the puck, expand your view of the ice, and look to see who does what as plays develop. If you can do that, you will never need a number again and you will know what is about to happen and who is in position to profit or suffer from it. Its just that simple, and no data will ever match it.

While I agree with the bolded portion of your post, I'd say your tone and dismissive language reveals your own bias and I may suggest that not everybody can be as astute or insightful as you fancy yourself. I frequently find myself agreeing with many of your posts but stats have their value to anyone that can't be the perfect viewer or evaluator of talent that you seem to fancy yourself.

Every stat should be viewed in context of other stats and compared against and with the "eye test" but humans have bias. The things you may be watching for may cause you to miss or dismiss the things you're NOT looking for and to suggest that those biases don't exist is naive.

PART of my huge issue with things like xG is that they are not simple "counting stats" and the idea that there may be a bias in the construction of the equation is never discussed. The notion that "equation stats" are objective is, to me, the real flaw.

Corsi is simple. It's just shot attempts and as we know from criticisms of SOG, you can heavily out shoot a team but if they're all from the perimeter and low danger areas it doesn't really mean you outplayed them.

Corsi is just a clearer expression of Shots On Goal and can reveal information that you may not have been aware of if all you're looking for is "how many goals did Player X score"

The perfect hockey watching machine may not need the added benefit of statistics but so very few of us are perfect.

EDIT : I just realized I should have read this back to myself before posting cus I used "fancy yourself" twice in a row and jesus it sounds obnoxious.