LA KINGS 2023/4 Regular season discussion

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.
For the hell of it, I pulled the highlights from the games in which he was on the ice for more than one goal against at even strength (10/20 vs. Pittsburgh, 10/22 vs. Washington, and 10/27 vs. Winnipeg).

10/20 vs. Pittsburgh:
Goal 1:

It's a somewhat chaotic play where Walker gets his legs cut out from underneath behind the net, but the puck is kept to the outside the entire time. Malkin works it up high Jan Rutta, who flings a weak shot at the net from 55 feet away that somehow goes under Cal Peterson. Looks like just a bad goal against to me but I'm curious what he did poorly there in his defending.

Goal 2:

This one is an entire team breakdown, starting with the forecheck in the offensive zone. Fiala and Byfield get caught behind the net, Kaliyev gets caught too far away from the player on the boards, and Walker is pinched up way too far in the zone. One pass beats Kaliyev and a touch pass off of that beats a pinched-up Walker and Clarke, who swings at the puck but misses. Clarke got beat by Carter but I have a really hard time blaming him for this goal when Carter just beats Walker up ice on that side of the ice coming out of the zone.

10/22 vs. Washington:
Goal 1:

This one's pretty straightforward. Byfield turns the puck over in the neutral zone. The puck changes sides at the far blueline and comes back up the wing Clarke is defending. Vilardi gets caught reaching for the pass from Kuznetsov to Carlson and misses it. Carlson shoots from the top of the circle in front of Clarke but Quick lets it bleed through him. Clarke probably could have been tighter on his gap but this was another one there were multiple mistakes made prior to that point, not to mention another example of a goal going through one of the Kings' goalies.

Goal 2:

Clarke flips the puck high up the wall to the point. Lizotte, having lost his helmet and having to go to the bench, skates past the puck, while Fiala tries to catch it but misses it. It ends up on the stick of the defender, who makes a D-to-D pass across the blueline. Clarke ties up his man in front of the net, Edler ties up his man, but no one picks up Eller on the weak side after the breakdown of Lizotte having left the ice. Normally that would have been the center's guy to cover, but Kopitar was racing back into the play due to Lizotte coming off. Hard to really pin that one on poor defending on anyone. If anything, Fiala probably should have recognized that Lizotte going off left one man open down low.

Goal 3:

Caps come through the neutral zone with 3 players, while the Kings have 2 defenders with Vilardi coming back (though he's slow to recognize that he should pick up Orlov). Johansson attacks Clarke but drops the puck to Orlov. Orlov gives it back to Johansson, who misses the pass but picks up it behind the goal line. Johansson comes around the other side and scores from 3 feet behind the net. Clarke correctly did not chase Johansson behind the net but Quick allows a brutal goal.

10/27 vs. Winnipeg:
Goal 1:

Edler gets caught up at the blueline so Clarke shifts over to the left side to pick up Barron on the far wall. Barron works it down low to Lowry, who is covered by Lizotte. Edler inexplicably does not rotate to the right side after Clarke had to cover the left side due to Edler getting caught up high on the entry, but instead comes down low to cover the left side, as well. Clarke realizes that Edler is basically covering Clarke instead of a Jet, Clarke and Edler try to sort out coverage down low. Edler finally picks up one player, so Clarke goes to the other player in front as the shot is coming from the point. Clarke causes a bit of a moving screen but it's still another goal against from 55 feet away. All of the chaos in this sequence starts with Edler getting himself out of position and then failing to recognize that he needed to rotate to the right side.

Goal 2:

Clarke is being forechecked behind the goal line and connects on a pass to Grundstrom. Grundstrom is pressured, so he banks it off the wall to Lizotte. Lizotte circles back but loses an edge and turns it over behind the goal line. Grundstrom strips the puck right back and tries to bank to to himself off the wall but badly turnes it over to the defenseman instead. The defenseman flings the puck at the net from 59 feet away and it's tipped by the player behind both Clarke and Edler about 20 feet out. Quick--being the 2022-23 version of Quick--overpursues the puck to his right to the point where only his left foot is barely in the crease. Any less movement from him and he could have stopped it. You can argue that Clarke could have done a better job of boxing out Jonsson-Fjällby, though this was a byproduct of Grundstrom making a bad turnover in transition at the blue line.



The bottom line is that I see a ton of poor goaltending, some bad team play leading to goals against, and a few things you can nitpick about Clarke's positioning on two of the goals against. What I don't see is egregiously bad, or even bad, defending on Clarke's part leading to goals against.
 
I dunno maybe it's just me but I like being able to separate how the palyer is playing vs. how the goaltender is playing especially when it's a separate sample size from everyone else

If he played 82 right alongisde everyone else it wouldn't matter as much
 
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?
Oh absolutely. The guy is a high-event player. I'm just saying he needs work on the defensive side. If he can keep up the GF/60 that's be amazing.
 
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 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.

Then my question is why Quick and Petersen would only suck when he's on the ice?
 
Then my question is why Quick and Petersen would only suck when he's on the ice?
I just posted a bunch of video of the majority of the even strength goals he was on the ice for and broke down what happened leading to the goals against. Sometimes weird things can happen in small sample sizes, which is why looking at context and process instead of putting blinders on and looking solely at results offers better analysis.
 
I just posted a bunch of video of the majority of the even strength goals he was on the ice for and broke down what happened leading to the goals against. Sometimes weird things can happen in small sample sizes, which is why looking at context and process instead of putting blinders on and looking solely at results offers better analysis.

Same argument back in 2011-2012 were people were bitching about the offense, even through the context and process were there (ie. they were generating chances, just couldn't finish)
 
For those that are still confused by xG, I'm going to try to break it down as simply as possible using an example.

xG takes in all the context of the actual shot attempt - so a rebound opportunity from a high danger area like Fiala's goal has about a 50% chance of going in. That would give that shot attempt an xG value of .5. Visualized here:

1698431056683.png

a 50.1% chance of scoring is an xG value of .501. That increased the Kings TOTAL expected goals at that juncture of the game from 2.405 to 2.906.

Given how this stat measures both shot attempt quantity AND quality, you can begin to see how this is a very useful tool, especially over a large sample.

Over a small/game sample, it gives you a general idea of how that game went and who generally had a better chance of scoring more goals.

To get more granular, if you'd like to know how each xG value is actually determined: "An xG model uses historical information from thousands of shots with similar characteristics to estimate the likelihood of a goal on a scale between 0 and 1."
 
Last edited:
The guy is so explosive offensively too, but I bet we coach it out of him

Not everyone has to be an all situations swiss army knife, some guys are just raw offense, and when you have an org where 90% of the gusy are defensive or two-way at best, it's okay to have some serious weapons

they seem okay with fiala even went out to get him with all his flaws. But Kaliyev? Clarke? Spence? Sorry guys, lern2check
 
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.
Just curious, anyone know how PLD's xGF was last year among centers?
 
For those that are still confused by xG, I'm going to try to break it down as simply as possible using an example.

xG takes in all the context of the actual shot attempt - so a rebound opportunity from a high danger area like Fiala's goal has about a 50% chance of going in. That would give that shot attempt an xG value of .5. Visualized here:

View attachment 758870
a 50.1% chance of scoring is an xG value of .501. That increased the Kings TOTAL expected goals at that juncture of the game from 2.405 to 2.906.

Given how this stat measures both shot attempt quantity AND quality, you can begin to see how this is a very useful tool, especially over a large sample.

Over a small/game sample, it gives you a general idea of how that game went and who generally had a better chance of scoring more goals.

To get more granular, if you'd like to know how each xG value is actually determined: "An xG model uses historical information from thousands of shots with similar characteristics to estimate the likelihood of a goal on a scale between 0 and 1."
To add to this, for those who recoil at the "expected" part of xG, there's a timely article in The Athletic this morning explaining why generating higher-quality scoring chances than the other team on a consistent basis is fairly important in hockey: What do the NHL's new puck-tracking metrics tell us about goalie play this season?

There are also some new metrics for the goalies, although not nearly as robust as for the skaters. The website tracks the location of every shot faced by a goaltender, allowing users to sort a goalie’s stats by high-danger, mid-range and long-range shots.

These categories offer valuable context to consider when analyzing a goalie’s stats, because while other variables — such as screens and puck movement prior to the shot — factor heavily into save difficulty, nothing changes a save’s difficulty more than distance from the net.

A high-danger shot is defined as coming from the area within 29 feet of the center of the net, and bound on both sides by an imaginary line drawn from the faceoff dot to two feet outside the goalpost. Medium-range shots are 29 to 43 feet from the center of the goal, bound by the same imaginary line, and long-range shots are anything farther than 43 feet.

Screenshot 2023-10-28 at 10.45.50 AM.png


1698504340850.png
 
I can’t help but wonder what kind of contracts Byfield and Kaliyev will get this offseason. Bridge contracts with low AAV’s, I have to imagine. I wonder if we see Turcotte take over Arvidsson’s spot and Clarke take over Roy’s.

Byfield - Kopitar - Kempe
Fiala - Dubois - Laferriere
Turcotte - Danault - Moore

Anderson - Doughty
Gavrikov - Clarke
Spence

There are certainly still questions abound on bottom lines and pairs, and some obvious question marks in net (we literally don’t have a single goaltender under contract next season), but moderate raises to some of our young players will still leave us with a lot of cap space if Arvidsson and Roy walk.

Does Blake go big game hunting on a goalie like Saros this year?
 
It sure seems like Copley's Cinderella run has hit midnight....he's been dog crap since the end of the regular season last year. Getting worse too. If not now, it's getting close to the point of the team needing to drop him, bring up Rittich as the backup and give Port the FT Ontario starting job. You could make an argument that this should have been the case at the start of the season.
 
Was at the game.’
I can’t help but wonder what kind of contracts Byfield and Kaliyev will get this offseason. Bridge contracts with low AAV’s, I have to imagine. I wonder if we see Turcotte take over Arvidsson’s spot and Clarke take over Roy’s.

Byfield - Kopitar - Kempe
Fiala - Dubois - Laferriere
Turcotte - Danault - Moore

Anderson - Doughty
Gavrikov - Clarke
Spence

There are certainly still questions abound on bottom lines and pairs, and some obvious question marks in net (we literally don’t have a single goaltender under contract next season), but moderate raises to some of our young players will still leave us with a lot of cap space if Arvidsson and Roy walk.

Does Blake go big game hunting on a goalie like Saros this year?

Englund signed a two year. If Kings don’t plan on using him they better add another fighter. I’ve been at most games and he’s been really active because teams are pushing and taking liberties against Kings after almost every face off and stoppage.

He was really busy last night. Arizona had Brown, O’Brien and McBain were stirring it up.
 
Not everyone has to be an all situations swiss army knife, some guys are just raw offense, and when you have an org where 90% of the gusy are defensive or two-way at best, it's okay to have some serious weapons

I’ve been saying this for years. This forum have a tendency to look only at negatives of a players (especially offensive players), whether it’s defensive ability, size, physicality whatever and completely ignoring their strengths (which in many cases are superstar level). There certainly has long been a preference for this organization to favor swiss-army type players, and I think its caused many of the fanbase to have the same views.

2 notable guys I've gone to war with people over.

"Look how bad Karlsson is defensively"
"I wouldn't want Karlsson on my team"
"I want my defenseman to play defense"

But how many offensive chances does he create?
Who else in the league transitions the game from the defensive zone to offensive zone better?
Is he responsible for creating more goals than he gives up?

"We can't draft Caufield at #5, he's 5'7 and plays no defense"

But how many players in the league shoot the puck as well as him?
How many players have the o-zone game sense he has?

There are other players as well, and I'm not saying you need to have a team full of these guys, but having a couple of them doesn't hurt, and in fairness to the Kings, they did go get a player like that in Fiala (and paid a lot) and draft one in Clarke.

But unless certain fans (who hated Karlsson) do a complete 180, they aren't going to like Brandt Clarke. Clarke's absolute ceiling is Karlsson, and he has many of the traits (positive and negative) that Karlsson has. Much like I say about Fiala, you have to realize the good is going to outweigh the bad.

If a guy is directly responsible for generating 40 goals for and 25 goals against he is helping his team more than a swiss army vanilla guy.
 
Was at the game.’

Englund signed a two year. If Kings don’t plan on using him they better add another fighter. I’ve been at most games and he’s been really active because teams are pushing and taking liberties against Kings after almost every face off and stoppage.

He was really busy last night. Arizona had Brown, O’Brien and McBain were stirring it up.
That’s fine, although there might be cap space to add some guys on the third pair and fourth line who are even better than Englund. He’s been good thus far though, I don’t mean to discredit him. But I’m not ready to pencil him in on next year’s roster after seven games.
 
I think Clarke is better at defense than Karlsson, he needs to tune up a few things but he's fine. He's not down in the AHL to work on defense regardless of what they say, it's a numbers game right now and Spence has earned a shot.

And I don't think the Kings care about his defense as much as people think. That's just lip service and to keep him motivated. TM threw him out there in pretty much every situation at the beginning of the season. He blew through those games, he was barely scratched. TM likes him for sure.

That aside I think it's important to teach forwards how to play better defense every chance you get. The goaltending woes are substantial but they are closely tied to team defense. The Kings don't play that very well right now, and it shows. Am I going to put an obviously ready guy in the AHL for it? Nope. But at draft time if I have two guys on equal footing I take the more defensively sound one every time. It simply makes it easier to win.

The team does play better team defense in front of Talbot for whatever reason, and that's why I ride him for a while. He's not as chaotic back there as Copley is this year.
 
Last edited:
id like to see pld on kopitars wing and Q centering fiala and laferriere
maybe that would make pld wrong handed but but that never bothered todd
 
If Copper keeps shitting the bed, Rittich def deserves a chance. Judging by some of the footage from preseason and camp, the goalie lineup could have gone either way. I'm sure there was a sense that they "owed" Copley after coming in so clutch last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrute farms
So, its been a decent sample size thus far, games against a variety of styles and qualities of opponents. Does anyone think that Dubois is:

A) Worth Vilardi, Iafallo, Kupari and a 2nd

B) Worth a cap hit of $8.5 million

C) Worthy of an 8 year deal

D) None of the above

Decent player, obvious strengths, obvious deficiencies, but what growth do we expect to see? A lack of consistency has plagued him in his young career, so there is room to improve there. But even if he does find it, is he worth that squeeze?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad