LA KINGS 2023/4 Regular season discussion

[AbsentMojo]

Doughty was a dynamite offensive blueliner his first few years then seemed content to settle into this defensive rover role.

At 33, he’s an awful choice for a #1 D.

The reality of the modern NHL is that most contending #1 Ds produce 60+ points and are at worst average defensively.

The rest of your blueline is then filled out with defensive rovers or crease clearers who can plug and play in appropriate situations.

Doughty at 33 would be a great #2 for a contending team.

Ya its another roster deficiency that doesnt get discussed. They are playing DD by his salary and not by his current skillset. There was a series of games last season where he Bobby Orr'd a few times and scored - do you remember that? he has the capability to get around defenders but he's settled in to his routine of calming things down and never pushing play.. prob because he has to conserve energy playing 30 min a game.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

If you are using advanced stats to compare Clarke using his 9 games at the start of last season, then shouldn't you limit the other Kings Dmen to those SAME 9 games too?
Seems a better apples-to-apples comparison. Especially when you are doing it to compare against other Kings and what attributes/weaknesses he brings. That way you don't get distorted results. This is the problem with using such limited data. If Clarke had 50-100 games, then you wouldn't have this same erroneous statistical analysis and conclusions.

Here:

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Doughty last year was clearly coming off a bum wrist and it showed.

I think the biggest thing is he needs his minutes managed

I forget where it was--maybe that preseason show?--where he talked about 'yeah you wont' see me ever go full speed in a game' because of his brain and efficiency and ability to play big minutes. Like sure I agree--but his biggest problem at this stage of his career is 'letting up' on plays so he can play those minutes.

Like i've said for years--imagine an 18-minutes-a-game Anze and even a 22 minute Doughty.

He still can be an elite defensive dman and SHOULD be good for 50-60 points if he's on the PP but Spence and Clarke need to start getting in there if things make sense....buuuuuut of course we know we're in TM/Blake world and you don't touch the golden children.

I'm one of Doughty's biggest fans but he's gonna crash and burn if he's not managed. Like Kopitar did in the playoffs. You're not doing them a service by giving them the key to the city--you're doing them a disservice. With this much depth, it's insane to lean on them.

 

[King'sPawn]

Here:

View attachment 758332

View attachment 758346

Thank you for that. I didn't realize you could filter by date like that. Seems to support what you said earlier about it being goaltending issues.

Lowest expected goals against, second lowest on-ice save percentage. He did get favorable starts. I notice he also has the most high danger chances for and fewest high danger chances against.

The stretch he played in shows, both in the eyes and analytics, that he was at least as good as everyone else, with the biggest mark against him being favorable offensive zone starts.

So, this "he's not ready" argument just strikes me as Blake apoligism.

 

[Statto]

I didn't see a FLA player in that top 10 list.

I said meaningful threat. I never said top 10 threat. 100+ isn’t a meaningful threat however you wish to slice it. Our blue line is not all that dynamic.

If you don’t have that dynamic threat it makes you much more predictable and easier to set up against. It’s why Clarke will/would be such an important piece because it’ll be expected that he will do something special and teams will have to allow for that.

You really won’t entertain any constructive criticism/critique that remotely questions the approach being taken. Sure some are hyperbolic posts about ‘it’s all doom’ constantly but you really seem to be unable to acknowledge any of the weaknesses in the current approach. Yes, pretty much every team will have some flaws or similar concerns (before you throw that one out there) but it’s not those teams we are discussing. It’s just the other side of the ‘we are all doomed’ coin.

 

[Fishhead]

If you are using advanced stats to compare Clarke using his 9 games at the start of last season, then shouldn't you limit the other Kings Dmen to those SAME 9 games too?
Seems a better apples-to-apples comparison. Especially when you are doing it to compare against other Kings and what attributes/weaknesses he brings. That way you don't get distorted results. This is the problem with using such limited data. If Clarke had 50-100 games, then you wouldn't have this same erroneous statistical analysis and conclusions.

Yeah, absolutely the best thing to do.

It all gives context to just how bad the Kings goalies were playing in the beginning of the year and to point out why his season numbers might have looked poor compared to others who played in front of different goalies.

Here:

View attachment 758332

View attachment 758346

TY for this.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Thank you for that. I didn't realize you could filter by date like that. Seems to support what you said earlier about it being goaltending issues.

Lowest expected goals against, second lowest on-ice save percentage. He did get favorable starts. I notice he also has the most high danger chances for and fewest high danger chances against.

The stretch he played in shows, both in the eyes and analytics, that he was at least as good as everyone else, with the biggest mark against him being favorable offensive zone starts.

So, this "he's not ready" argument just strikes me as Blake apoligism.

He crushed his favorable deployment and was dragged down by awful goaltending. It's been a year since I watched him play an NHL game, but I distinctly recall being a little surprised with how impressive he was in all areas of the ice. I was pretty frustrated he was jerked around to keep clowns like Walker and Durzi in the lineup when he was clearly the better player.

 

[Statto]

They could be a lot better, but I don't think they are as bad as it might appear.

From the top-4 D right now they have 12 points in 6 games. That's not bad at all, that's pacing for 164 points despite playing a really tough schedule. Overall they have 15 points from the D which paces for over 200 points. And only one of those points (Roy) is on the PP, everything else is at even strength. For reference, only 6 teams had over 200 points from their defense last year in all situations.

I'd put them middle of the pack right now offensively. They have more even strength points from their defense than the Avalanche do, FWIW. And Boston. Same as Carolina.

This seasons numbers are based off too small a sample size to draw any conclusions or even a meaningful view in either direction. For the record I do think that Spence will help things compared to last year.

It’s not just about points though. Things like zone entries, high danger chance etc will all affect his teams set up against us. We get excited about the rare successful rushes from Doughty and how it puts teams in the back foot. Imagine having someone that carries that genuine threat on every shift.

 

[lumbergh]

Yes, there was a dramatic drop in his performance when he was moved to the left side, as predicted. Also, he doesn't get the benefit of the stability of a larger sample size like some of these guys do, as you can see in his GF/60 as well, which is also absurd and the combo of both is still better than our depth dmen.

Prior to, he was absolutely crushing it.

Though most will agree he needs to work on his defensive game.

Not correct. He played 55 minutes with LDs Edler, Anderson, and Durzi and got scored on 6 times (4 goals for). He played 57 minutes with RDs Walker, Doughty, and Roy and got scored on 4 times (5 goals for). This whole left side thing is a red herring. The truth is he was on the ice for a lot of goals against no matter which side he was playing.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Not correct. He played 55 minutes with LDs Edler, Anderson, and Durzi and got scored on 6 times (4 goals for). He played 57 minutes with RDs Walker, Doughty, and Roy and got scored on 4 times (5 goals for). This whole left side thing is a red herring. The truth is he was on the ice for a lot of goals against no matter which side he was playing.

Are you just gonna ignore the stats in the previous 50 or so posts orrrrr

 

[lumbergh]

Here:

View attachment 758332

View attachment 758346

xGA/60 is not nearly as useful as actual GA/60, which, again, was astronomical at 5.3 (right in the same table). Not sure what the point of using advanced stats when the actual stats tell you the story. That On Ice SV % for the Edler-Clarke pairing was absolutely atrocious. The fact that it was okay (89-91%) for the other pairings has to make you think that it wasn't all the goalie's fault.

I'm not out to pick on Clarke, but the numbers of his short 9 game sample say he got scored on. A LOT. If you wanna blame it on Edler, okay, but Edler didn't have a GA/60 of >5 in the other games he played with Quick and Petersen.

It's okay to admit that Clarke wasn't very effective in his own zone in a small sample. He's in the AHL to work on that stuff so that he can play better when he gets called up.

 

[King'sPawn]

xGA/60 is not nearly as useful as actual GA/60

Why not?

Actual GA is affected by the goaltender actually letting in a goal. Expected GA is expected goals against, providing context of the number of bad plays in front of the goalie.

It's okay to say he needs to work on his defensive game (which he does) and also pointing out the metrics aren't as bad as portrayed.

So, why is the actual GA/60 a better measure of defensive play?

 

[lumbergh]

Are you just gonna ignore the stats in the previous 50 or so posts orrrrr

No. I’m just gonna poke holes in the arguments use good hard numbers. No “expected” numbers. No zone entries. Just goals for, goals against.

I get it. Everybody loves Clarke. I do too. Anytime there’s criticism every jumps to making excuses, like playing in the left side, or it was the goalies’ fault. The fact is an abnormally high number of goals were scored while Clarke was on the ice. There’s no way around that.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

No. I’m just gonna poke holes in the arguments use good hard numbers. No “expected” numbers. No zone entries. Just goals for, goals against.

I get it. Everybody loves Clarke. I do too. Anytime there’s criticism every jumps to making excuses, like playing in the left side, or it was the goalies’ fault. The fact is an abnormally high number of goals were scored while Clarke was on the ice. There’s no way around that.

But….but…..the organization is out to get him, bruh.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No. I’m just gonna poke holes in the arguments use good hard numbers. No “expected” numbers. No zone entries. Just goals for, goals against.

I get it. Everybody loves Clarke. I do too. Anytime there’s criticism every jumps to making excuses, like playing in the left side, or it was the goalies’ fault. The fact is an abnormally high number of goals were scored while Clarke was on the ice. There’s no way around that.

Well, you go ahead and do that. The rest of us will look to separate process from results, especially in a minuscule sample size.

 

[King'sPawn]

I get it. Everybody loves Clarke. I do too. Anytime there’s criticism every jumps to making excuses, like playing in the left side, or it was the goalies’ fault. The fact is an abnormally high number of goals were scored while Clarke was on the ice. There’s no way around that.

Yeah, and like your GA/60, context is needed.

Let's be more direct. Roy and Doughty were on the ice for more goals against, 5-on-5, than anyone else last year. Stop making excuses like "ice time." There's no way around that.

Guess they're worse than Durzi, too, right?

Nobody is denying that Clarke needs to improve defensively. So this whole excuses thing is absurd. We're denying he's worse than Durzi defensively, which many of us can cite with the eye test and metrics back up.

 

[lumbergh]

Why not?

Actual GA is affected by the goaltender actually letting in a goal. Expected GA is expected goals against, providing context of the number of bad plays in front of the goalie.

It's okay to say he needs to work on his defensive game (which he does) and also pointing out the metrics aren't as bad as portrayed.

So, why is the actual GA/60 a better measure of defensive play?

Your response is exactly the reason why I almost never quote “expected” goals. No one has any idea how it’s calculated or what it means. I just did a quick search and found this article. It says nothing about the number of bad plays in front of the goalie.

Analytics with Alison: Expected Goals | Seattle Kraken

Not all shots are the same. Expected goals helps us understand shot quality on a variety of levels: by player, by line and by team

www.nhl.com

If you read an article like that and come out with a decent understanding of xGA, kudos to you. It’s complete gibberish to me, and I have a Ph.D. To me, “advanced“ stats in hockey just mean “opaque”.

There is absolutely nothing complicated about GA/60. The aim of this sport is to score more goals than the other team in 60 minutes. You’re on the ice when a goal is scored against you, that’s counted against you. If you’re a defenseman, you have a big role to play in terms of keeping the puck out of your own net. Sometimes you get scored on and it’s not your fault, but if it happens over and over it gets harder to ignore.

Yeah, and like your GA/60, context is needed.

Let's be more direct. Roy and Doughty were on the ice for more goals against, 5-on-5, than anyone else last year. Stop making excuses like "ice time." There's no way around that.

Guess they're worse than Durzi, too, right?

Nobody is denying that Clarke needs to improve defensively. So this whole excuses thing is absurd. We're denying he's worse than Durzi defensively, which many of us can cite with the eye test and metrics back up.

I think you missed the /60 part of the GA/60.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Zack Kassian retired apparently. I wonder how long before someone on this board will advocate for signing him.

Damn. There goes that

 

[lumbergh]

Yeah, and like your GA/60, context is needed.

Let's be more direct. Roy and Doughty were on the ice for more goals against, 5-on-5, than anyone else last year. Stop making excuses like "ice time." There's no way around that.

Guess they're worse than Durzi, too, right?

Nobody is denying that Clarke needs to improve defensively. So this whole excuses thing is absurd. We're denying he's worse than Durzi defensively, which many of us can cite with the eye test and metrics back up.

I also haven‘t made any excuses about ice time BTW. No need to put words in my mouth.

 

[bland]

Clarke was a teenaged rookie defensemen playing against men on a team that leaked goals with or without him. Of course he made some mistakes. Why is this an issue?

Just another example of people using stats to say something patently obvious and acting like its some sort of revelation.

Players aren't and do not need to be perfect. Statistical arguments are starting with numerical perfection as the goal and work backwards to justify things that are just a colossal waste of time.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Look at what the Ducks are doing with Carlsson. Play one game, sit two. Better Clarke is playing Drew Doughty minutes in Ontario.

 

[King'sPawn]

Your response is exactly the reason why I almost never quote “expected” goals. No one has any idea how it’s calculated or what it means. I just did a quick search and found this article. It says nothing about the number of bad plays in front of the goalie.

Analytics with Alison: Expected Goals | Seattle Kraken

Not all shots are the same. Expected goals helps us understand shot quality on a variety of levels: by player, by line and by team

www.nhl.com

If you read an article like that and come out with a decent understanding of xGA, kudos to you. It’s complete gibberish to me, and I have a Ph.D. To me, “advanced“ stats in hockey just mean “opaque”.

There is absolutely nothing complicated about GA/60. The aim of this sport is to score more goals than the other team in 60 minutes. You’re on the ice when a goal is scored against you, that’s counted against you. If you’re a defenseman, you have a big role to play in terms of keeping the puck out of your own net. Sometimes you get scored on and it’s not your fault, but if it happens over and over it gets harder to ignore.


I think you missed the /60 part of the GA/60.

I didn't miss anything. The /60 provides context. But looking at raw numbers, Doughty and Roy lead the team in actual goals against. More than Durzi.

We're looking at raw numbers here. Seems to me there's a problem if more goals are scored when you're on the ice.

See how picking one cherrypicked stat to support an extreme argument is faulty? And when we explain why it's faulty, providing eye tests and the best (albeit flawed) data we have, and instead you dismiss it as just excuses?

I notice in the snippet Chazz Reinhold provided, Edler had the worst GA/60 (5.48) out of the defensemen in the same timespan. Based on the sample size, would you argue with a straight face that he's significantly inferior defensively to Durzi (who had a 2.34 GA/60 in the same timespan)?

 

[Fishhead]

No. I’m just gonna poke holes in the arguments use good hard numbers. No “expected” numbers. No zone entries. Just goals for, goals against.

I get it. Everybody loves Clarke. I do too. Anytime there’s criticism every jumps to making excuses, like playing in the left side, or it was the goalies’ fault. The fact is an abnormally high number of goals were scored while Clarke was on the ice. There’s no way around that.

In that case, we are idiots not to have Clarke on the roster. In all situations, he had the 2nd best GF/60 in the entire NHL - over a point ahead of Karlsson. Yeah, his GA/60 was 4.89, but when your GF/60 is 5.38, who the hell cares?

 

[Statto]

Your response is exactly the reason why I almost never quote “expected” goals. No one has any idea how it’s calculated or what it means. I just did a quick search and found this article. It says nothing about the number of bad plays in front of the goalie.

Analytics with Alison: Expected Goals | Seattle Kraken

Not all shots are the same. Expected goals helps us understand shot quality on a variety of levels: by player, by line and by team

www.nhl.com

If you read an article like that and come out with a decent understanding of xGA, kudos to you. It’s complete gibberish to me, and I have a Ph.D. To me, “advanced“ stats in hockey just mean “opaque”.

There is absolutely nothing complicated about GA/60. The aim of this sport is to score more goals than the other team in 60 minutes. You’re on the ice when a goal is scored against you, that’s counted against you. If you’re a defenseman, you have a big role to play in terms of keeping the puck out of your own net. Sometimes you get scored on and it’s not your fault, but if it happens over and over it gets harder to ignore.


I think you missed the /60 part of the GA/60.

I’ve worked as the statistics guy on a pro European Elite team, (a IIHF level 4 coach, if that matters + other top coaches) and I’ll tell you as a fact xGF/A (not that I called it thar then) was of infinitely more interest/important than the actuals when assessing player performance. It is used to assess process, the system, player execution etc. This applies to several coaches I worked with, so a good sample size.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

xGA/60 is not nearly as useful as actual GA/60, which, again, was astronomical at 5.3 (right in the same table). Not sure what the point of using advanced stats when the actual stats tell you the story. That On Ice SV % for the Edler-Clarke pairing was absolutely atrocious. The fact that it was okay (89-91%) for the other pairings has to make you think that it wasn't all the goalie's fault.

I'm not out to pick on Clarke, but the numbers of his short 9 game sample say he got scored on. A LOT. If you wanna blame it on Edler, okay, but Edler didn't have a GA/60 of >5 in the other games he played with Quick and Petersen.

It's okay to admit that Clarke wasn't very effective in his own zone in a small sample. He's in the AHL to work on that stuff so that he can play better when he gets called up.

I know what actual goals against/60 is. Relying solely on that means you ignore all context and process of how the puck ended up in the net. The unstated rationale of your argument that only GA/60 matters is that every single goal scored in the NHL is equally earned, process be damned, and that there's no such thing as a well-defended play where an excellent shot picks a corner despite the best efforts of the defending team, there's no such thing as a horrible goal allowed by the goalie that was well defended (say...this one? ), and that there's no such thing as variation in quality of scoring chance against.

You act as if expected goals is some inscrutable cypher, yet I spelled it out simply for you in my post: it measures the quality of scoring chances that are occurring when the player is on the ice. However, if expected numbers make you queasy, we can just look right at the quality of scoring chances against. Brandt Clarke allowed the fewest high-danger chances against during his time on the roster:

Seems to me there's solid evidence he did a good job keeping the puck away from dangerous areas of the ice (in other words, he did a good job at defending in his zone).

You suggest that "[t]he fact that [save percentage] was okay (89-91%) for the other pairings has to make you think that it wasn't all the goalie's fault," yet he was doing the best out of all defensemen during his time on the roster to let the goalie have easier save opportunities. The fact that the on-ice save percentage was so low, combined with the lower quality of scoring chances allowed while he was on the ice, is a pretty clear indication that Quick and Peterson were downright awful when he was on the ice.

Finally, we've all watched hockey long enough to know that every goal is created differently, and that things can get a little crazy when there's vulcanized rubber flying around on ice with 10 or more dudes in big pads trying to hammer it into a 6'x4' net.