Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread 2022-23 Season

[Cianide]

What game are you watching? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but he's been our least effective defenseman and arguably our least effective player this year (either him or Grundstrom). Beyond just the eye test, he's got the worst statistics among regular defensemen with the least ice time.

View attachment 631137

Nice. Stats don't tell the story though.

 

[kilowatt]

Nice. Stats don't tell the story though.

So make a case for what he's doing well? You literally said he's worth his weight in gold

 

[King'sPawn]

Nice. Stats don't tell the story though.

That's why he said beyond the eye test.

He's improved the past couple games, but by and large unremarkable even on good days. I'd say at best he's pedestrian.

 

[lumbergh]

I have issues with xGF%, I don't think it is a perfect stat at all. Combined with CF%, SF% and GF% it can provide an additional piece of the puzzle. However I do not think PDO is a very useful stat for evaluation. It seems that you are arguing that PDO is a representation of skill, which it could be in many cases, but the original usage of PDO was to represent luck. That the on ice results differed from the expected on ice results and that had to do with variance. Having a high PDO ws thought to be a marker that a player or team were primed for a decline. The fact that there could be two completely opposite explanations for what a high PDO represents, kind of shows that it is not a very useful. If you compare Byfield to Bjornfot you will see the issue. Both Bjornfot and Byfield have the exact same GF% at 50, however Bjornfot has significantly higher possession numbers, leading to Bjornfot having a .955 PDO and Byfield having a 1.026 PDO. They have the same on ice results, expect one was driving possession more, you are crediting the one with worse possession as being the better player.

I'll say this again and again. PDO DOES NOT REPRESENT PUCK LUCK. "Having a high PDO was thought to be a marker that a player or team were primed for a decline" is just demonstrably wrong. Good teams have good PDOs, year after year. This is from last season (team stat):

Strong correlation. It's like this every year. I could post this same graph every year for the last five years.

Your example of Bjornfot and Byfield tells me you're looking at it backwards. The most important thing is the result. They both have the same GF%. That's the most important stat. Everything else is just explanation. PDO correlates with Point% better than CorsiFor% year after year. Its a better indicator of contributions to winning than CorsiFor%. Neither of them is better, they're just getting to the same result different ways. You're also using two players with very few minutes played this season, so again, sample size issues.

PDO, strong correlation to point%. CF%, weaker correlation to point%. Every. year.

 

[crassbonanza]

I'll say this again and again. PDO DOES NOT REPRESENT PUCK LUCK. "Having a high PDO was thought to be a marker that a player or team were primed for a decline" is just demonstrably wrong. Good teams have good PDOs, year after year. This is from last season (team stat):
View attachment 631147

Strong correlation. It's like this every year. I could post this same graph every year for the last five years.

Your example of Bjornfot and Byfield tells me you're looking at it backwards. The most important thing is the result. They both have the same GF%. That's the most important stat. Everything else is just explanation. PDO correlates with Point% better than CorsiFor% year after year. Its a better indicator of contributions to winning than CorsiFor%. Neither of them is better, they're just getting to the same result different ways. You're also using two players with very few minutes played this season, so again, sample size issues.

PDO, strong correlation to point%. CF%, weaker correlation to point%. Every. year.

I mean, of course a high PDO is going to correlate with a high points percentage, that's like saying that a high GF% correlates with a high points percentage. That is basically a no brainer. PDO as a stat is trying to look at luck, the guy who created the stat did so specifically to try to show puck luck, it's not even a discussion. Now I've argued in the past and recently it has been accepted that individual skill does come into play, but the origins of the stat is all about luck. You can typically see this in year over year PDO, there is not a whole lot of correlation between year 1 and 2.

You are conflating team PDO with skater PDO here by correlating high PDO with points%. Of he top 10 in PDO in the league currently, half of them are getting outshot when on ice. That top 10 features Victor Mete, Brodzinski, Josh Archibald, Nick Foligno, and Morgan Geekie. Is it your opinion that they are simply more skilled than others in the league and that is the reason why they have such a high PDO? It's not like we are talking about Ovechkin or Patrick Kane here.

If you are more interested in results, you are better off just looking at +/- instead of a stat that is specifically trying to identify players/teams who have had puck luck. Because I can guarantee you that GF% has a stronger correlation to point% than PDO does.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

In a competitive organization, Walker would be a career AHLer. There’s no reason he should be getting played over players like Clarke or Spence, much less getting played over BOTH Clarke and Spence.

Blake has demonstrated a real weakness to overcommitting on term with his contracts, though, so here we are.

 

[kilowatt]

In a competitive organization, Walker would be a career AHLer. There’s no reason he should be getting played over players like Clarke or Spence, much less getting played over BOTH Clarke and Spence.

Blake has demonstrated a real weakness to overcommitting on term with his contracts, though, so here we are.

It’s worse. There are three better RHD on the team as is in Doughty, Durzi, and Roy. Clarke and Spence have nothing to do with it. Using Durzi on his off hand is a terrible experiment.

This has inexplicably led to Durzi getting significant shorthanded time, which has proved to be a terrible idea.

 

[SherVaughn30]

Anyone feel the $5 million cap hits of Petersen and Quick's $5.8 million cap hit have become big problems in using that cap amount to acquire/sign a top 4 d-man with experience? Both goalies are having a negative impact. Blake should really find a way to move one of the contracts to open up cap space. He should not wait till the trade deadline to do it.

 

[Statto]

Anyone feel the $5 million cap hits of Petersen and Quick's $5.8 million cap hit have become big problems in using that cap amount to acquire/sign a top 4 d-man with experience? Both goalies are having a negative impact. Blake should really find a way to move one of the contracts to open up cap space. He should not wait till the trade deadline to do it.

Given where we are now he’d have to trade the goaltender plus multiple significant assets. It’d start with our ’23 first.

I agree on the impact though and it’s why I cannot see Quick being back. We cannot afford to but out Petersen and therefore he will start next season and with whom else we need to sign the other ‘tender needs to be on peanuts.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Good dilemma to have here, but once Moore and Kaliyev comes back....who do we jettison?

At this point, I think it's any two of the 4th line, I like the way JAD has been playing so I'd probably go with the other two, Lemeiux is #13, and Kupari back to the AHL...

 

[mysterman2]

It’s worse. There are three better RHD on the team as is in Doughty, Durzi, and Roy. Clarke and Spence have nothing to do with it. Using Durzi on his off hand is a terrible experiment.

This has inexplicably led to Durzi getting significant shorthanded time, which has proved to be a terrible idea.

Terrible idea that may never be addressed.

 

[Statto]

Good dilemma to have here, but once Moore and Kaliyev comes back....who do we jettison?

At this point, I think it's any two of the 4th line, I like the way JAD has been playing so I'd probably go with the other two, Lemeiux is #13, and Kupari back to the AHL...

I probably agree with that. JAD has really done a nice job and you can see his game growing as his confidence has done so.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I probably agree with that. JAD has really done a nice job and you can see his game growing as his confidence has done so.

Careful, agreeing with me might get you ostracized lmao

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

As per translated French-speaking sources, Clarke straight back to the OHL.

Happy Friday.

 

[King'sPawn]

As per translated French-speaking sources, Clarke straight back to the OHL.

Happy Friday.

So he was withheld from playing in the OHL after his 9th NHL game and conditioning stint... why?

 

[funky]

Anyone feel the $5 million cap hits of Petersen and Quick's $5.8 million cap hit have become big problems in using that cap amount to acquire/sign a top 4 d-man with experience? Both goalies are having a negative impact. Blake should really find a way to move one of the contracts to open up cap space. He should not wait till the trade deadline to do it.

Yes but Not really if they really want to make a trade they could get creative . We have $7.4 million ties up in Roy, Walker and Durzi. I could argue 2 of the 3 shouldn’t even be in the team as we could replace them with Spence/ Clarke and Bjornfot/ Moverare for way cheaper.

You could replace the three above listed at $7.4 million with Chychrun $4.6 no retention, Spence $820,000, Clarke $895,000 for a total of approx $6.4 mill and knock a million off our cap.

Chychrun - Doughty
Anderson - Spence
Bjornfot/ Moverare - Clarke.

That really weakens are right side depth so if Bjornfot is traded in the Chychrun deal, Durzi is retained, and Clarke is allowed to go to the OHL, it keeps our salary pretty much identical as to where it is today.

My only problem with loading up the right side with offensive driven defenseman that are a bit weak on defensive side is it really handcuffs the coaches decision making when we’re shorthanded or late in the game protecting the lead. I know Doughty tries to play half the game himself, but it would be nice to start reducing his minutes. As of right now, I see Roy as our second best right shot defenseman but he has a cap hit of $3.125 million.

My preferred lineup would be trade for Chychrun as we have two more years at very cheap control for a great defenseman while keeping Roy.

Anderson - Doughty
Chychrun - Roy
Moverare - Spence.
Edler

We bring in Chychrun’s $4.6
Trade Durzi’s $1.7 and Walkers $2.65 = $4.35

In hindsight, I think a trade can be made without moving the goalies, but I do agree that the contracts are a massive detriment in trying to balance out team needs.

I think the problem will still be there next year even with a Quicks carpet gone if we have a $5 million contract sitting in the minors in Peterson

 

[Trash Panda]

So he was withheld from playing in the OHL after his 9th NHL game and conditioning stint... why?

It’s been a complete waste of 6 months for the kid.

I grow more and more tiresome of how Blake chooses to handle prospects as time goes on, there just isn’t any logic involved in it.

 

[Bandit]

So he was withheld from playing in the OHL after his 9th NHL game and conditioning stint... why?

Because Blake's a queef.

 

[Seattle King]

Yes but Not really if they really want to make a trade they could get creative . We have $7.4 million ties up in Roy, Walker and Durzi. I could argue 2 of the 3 shouldn’t even be in the team as we could replace them with Spence/ Clarke and Bjornfot/ Moverare for way cheaper.

You could replace the three above listed at $7.4 million with Chychrun $4.6 no retention, Spence $820,000, Clarke $895,000 for a total of approx $6.4 mill and knock a million off our cap.

Chychrun - Doughty
Anderson - Spence
Bjornfot/ Moverare - Clarke.

That really weakens are right side depth so if Bjornfot is traded in the Chychrun deal, Durzi is retained, and Clarke is allowed to go to the OHL, it keeps our salary pretty much identical as to where it is today.

My only problem with loading up the right side with offensive driven defenseman that are a bit weak on defensive side is it really handcuffs the coaches decision making when we’re shorthanded or late in the game protecting the lead. I know Doughty tries to play half the game himself, but it would be nice to start reducing his minutes. As of right now, I see Roy as our second best right shot defenseman but he has a cap hit of $3.125 million.

My preferred lineup would be trade for Chychrun as we have two more years at very cheap control for a great defenseman while keeping Roy.

Anderson - Doughty
Chychrun - Roy
Moverare - Spence.
Edler

We bring in Chychrun’s $4.6
Trade Durzi’s $1.7 and Walkers $2.65 = $4.35

In hindsight, I think a trade can be made without moving the goalies, but I do agree that the contracts are a massive detriment in trying to balance out team needs.

I think the problem will still be there next year even with a Quicks carpet gone if we have a $5 million contract sitting in the minors in Peterson

If Roy is such a great defensive player and so well compensated, why isnt he capable of playing offhand? Seems like Durzi is the underpaid value player here, he drives play and he can play offhand since Todd insists on utilizing him in that fashion.
Cal's contract will be the main reason the Kings dont reach their potential in the next few as a franchise. A AHL goalie with a 5M cap hit.
Chychrun will not save us. So why bother? He will want 8M AAV in a couple of years. Durzi could be just as good offensively, we dont know how good he is yet.
I would like to see Durzi playing RHD next to a really solid LHD who has swagger and grit and shuts it down.

 

[BringTheReign]

Wright was reassigned to his OHL team this morning. I am extra curious to see what happens with Clarke. As much as I want Walker to make a full comeback, I don’t think he’s playing nearly well enough to play over Clarke or Spence.

Edit: It sounds like Clarke was officially reassigned to Barrie as well.

 

[Statto]

Careful, agreeing with me might get you ostracized lmao

It won’t too often… I even agreed with Sol once and got away with it

 

[Statto]

Yes but Not really if they really want to make a trade they could get creative . We have $7.4 million ties up in Roy, Walker and Durzi. I could argue 2 of the 3 shouldn’t even be in the team as we could replace them with Spence/ Clarke and Bjornfot/ Moverare for way cheaper.

You could replace the three above listed at $7.4 million with Chychrun $4.6 no retention, Spence $820,000, Clarke $895,000 for a total of approx $6.4 mill and knock a million off our cap.

Chychrun - Doughty
Anderson - Spence
Bjornfot/ Moverare - Clarke.

That really weakens are right side depth so if Bjornfot is traded in the Chychrun deal, Durzi is retained, and Clarke is allowed to go to the OHL, it keeps our salary pretty much identical as to where it is today.

My only problem with loading up the right side with offensive driven defenseman that are a bit weak on defensive side is it really handcuffs the coaches decision making when we’re shorthanded or late in the game protecting the lead. I know Doughty tries to play half the game himself, but it would be nice to start reducing his minutes. As of right now, I see Roy as our second best right shot defenseman but he has a cap hit of $3.125 million.

My preferred lineup would be trade for Chychrun as we have two more years at very cheap control for a great defenseman while keeping Roy.

Anderson - Doughty
Chychrun - Roy
Moverare - Spence.
Edler

We bring in Chychrun’s $4.6
Trade Durzi’s $1.7 and Walkers $2.65 = $4.35

In hindsight, I think a trade can be made without moving the goalies, but I do agree that the contracts are a massive detriment in trying to balance out team needs.

I think the problem will still be there next year even with a Quicks carpet gone if we have a $5 million contract sitting in the minors in Peterson

Roy has been underwhelming and has been giving the puck away in his own end for fun, so I’m not sure he’d be a big miss. As long as the defensive pairing in balanced we’d be fine. It’s why I wouldn’t want Chychrun (not the only reason) but instead a physical defensive LD to balance the offence from Spence (who isn’t bad in his own end) and Clarke who is improving defensively and is already better than Durzi in his own end IMO.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Because Blake's a queef.

Kid probably pocketed $130k after taxes from his nhl stint. I doubt he’s truly pissed about going back to juniors for a few more months after that plus a gold medal.

 

[Fishhead]

Kid probably pocketed $130k after taxes from his nhl stint. I doubt he’s truly pissed about going back to juniors for a few more months after that plus a gold medal.

Plus, I think the Kings know he's not going to learn a ton in Junior and that staying with the big club probably helps his development more. He had a fantastic tournament overall even though he hadn't played in weeks.

I don't think it will really impact his development in a major way, but that said I think he should still be on the roster and sending him down is a waste of his time.

 

[lumbergh]

I mean, of course a high PDO is going to correlate with a high points percentage, that's like saying that a high GF% correlates with a high points percentage. That is basically a no brainer. PDO as a stat is trying to look at luck, the guy who created the stat did so specifically to try to show puck luck, it's not even a discussion. Now I've argued in the past and recently it has been accepted that individual skill does come into play, but the origins of the stat is all about luck. You can typically see this in year over year PDO, there is not a whole lot of correlation between year 1 and 2.

You are conflating team PDO with skater PDO here by correlating high PDO with points%. Of he top 10 in PDO in the league currently, half of them are getting outshot when on ice. That top 10 features Victor Mete, Brodzinski, Josh Archibald, Nick Foligno, and Morgan Geekie. Is it your opinion that they are simply more skilled than others in the league and that is the reason why they have such a high PDO? It's not like we are talking about Ovechkin or Patrick Kane here.

If you are more interested in results, you are better off just looking at +/- instead of a stat that is specifically trying to identify players/teams who have had puck luck. Because I can guarantee you that GF% has a stronger correlation to point% than PDO does.

So let me get this straight. PDO correlates with a high points percentage, which is the mark of good teams. PDO is also a "stat trying to look at luck"? So team success is correlated with luck? PDO correlates with high points percentage. Year after year. Better than CorsiFor%. What's luck got to do with it? I'll say it again, PDO is not a measure of puck luck.

What PDO reveals on an individual basis is the ability to elevate the play of all the players on the team on both ends of the ice. These players, Morgan Geekie, Daniel Sprong, and Brandon Tanev are part of the reason why the Kraken are doing well. You saw the difference Trent Frederic made last night. If you are looking for players that aren't flashy, don't have the giant contracts that come with big goal and point numbers, The role players that help teams win, PDO is a better way to do it than CorsiFor%, about the same as the best xGF% models.

You're right that GF% is the best. That's why I looked at both GF% and PDO. Both tell you Iafallo and Anderson are your unsung heroes of the team.