As mentioned above--he did great when coaching coached. When put up the lineup with dudes who complement his weaknesses, he thrived. Imagine looking at these numbers and banishing him:
View attachment 883729
View attachment 883731
View attachment 883733
You don't think it's a coaching problem that he can skate around with a fellow youngster in the top six to the tune of controlling 2/3 of play and 100% of the GF share...and then gets literally benched?
You don't think it's a coaching problem that a line practically tailor-made for him in Danault and Moore can dominate even against hard competition and dzone starts...and then put him back with PLD?
You don't think it's a coaching problem that his metrics suffered when he got jammed back with the guys that can't gain a zone entry, sustain a forecheck, and have the lowest shooting % and save % on the team, and the solution is to bench him instead of move him back to success?
even with that banishment his metrics and xGF were tops on the team, and that's while playing most of his time with the guys at the
bottom of the chart.
View attachment 883754
Sure, he has to perform, and a goal scorer needs to score more goals. But there's this growing misconception that he's some ineffective floater and strange pushback to the idea that his usage is a problem, people are trying to blame him more than the org and I don't like it, especially given what the actual data says (and, to me, it reinforces the eye test). I'm not just gonna sit here and let outsiders pretend Kaliyev sucks more than the organization's usage of him.
The argument is just a nebulous "he doesn't fit" which is MUCH more of an indictment of the Kings than him and the people that are making it are going to look f***ing stupid next year.