Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread part VII

[lumbergh]

My biggest concern is does he have the tools? I feel Muzzin is a poor comparison because he always had the IQ and positioning, you could see it. Durzi is great at recovery but he struggled game in/game out with the basic, boring plays like standing up, poke checking, funneling a guy where you want him to go, and so on.

Not to mention Durzi’s reads. Always chooses the aggressive play and it came back to bite him several times. Pinches at the blue line we’re particularly problematic. That’s just a philosophical approach for him. Not sure if he can be convinced to rein in his aggressive instincts. Given softer minutes he maybe fine. He should settle in on the third pairing okay when paired with a more positionally sound partner.

 

[lumbergh]

Durzi didn’t have to clear waivers so we used Clague as our 7D until injuries opened a spot. I mean, given the opening night roster, who sits for Durzi? Walker? Roy?

Roy is so different from Durzi. I can’t imagine the Kings sitting Roy for Durzi. Roy has been arguably the best all-around defenseman for the Kings over the past two seasons.

Durzi and Walker are both offensive defensemen, so they’re likely competing for the same spot in October. Out of Durzi, Walker, and Spence I would pick Spence, but he’s likely gonna draw the short straw due to his ability to clear waivers.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

Not to mention Durzi’s reads. Always chooses the aggressive play and it came back to bite him several times. Pinches at the blue line we’re particularly problematic. That’s just a philosophical approach for him. Not sure if he can be convinced to rein in his aggressive instincts. Given softer minutes he maybe fine. He should settle in on the third pairing okay when paired with a more positionally sound partner.

Very true. I do think he will eventually grow into a solid D man. It will just take a lot of time. Here or in another organization. He's pretty young and has a tremendous upside, but needs more experience, much like the rest of the roster.

 

[Fishhead]

Not to mention Durzi’s reads. Always chooses the aggressive play and it came back to bite him several times. Pinches at the blue line we’re particularly problematic. That’s just a philosophical approach for him. Not sure if he can be convinced to rein in his aggressive instincts. Given softer minutes he maybe fine. He should settle in on the third pairing okay when paired with a more positionally sound partner.

Yeah it's a big season for him. I don't think we should trade him, unless the offer is too good to pass up, he's still got a good amount of potential. At 23 though, it's hard to make those kinds of changes.

I actually don't think he'll mistake his way out of the lineup so much as he'll get outplayed by someone else. The first task is to beat out Walker, who is not quite as good offensively but much better defensively. I think Spence is going to be better than both of them, but he's got a lot of work to do as well. Going to be lots of great competition in camp next season.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Just for fun, if the 3-2-1-0 system was implemented:
Kings 37*3 + 1*2 + 15*1 = 111+2+15 = 128
Flames 32*3 + 9*2 + 7*1 = 96 + 18 + 7 = 121

If the league implemented a 3 pts for RW, 2 for OTW, 1 for OTL, the Kings would have surpassed the Flames.

I literally did the conversion back to the W=2 L=0 T=1 to show that the Kings were the better team. Why make things more complicated.

the old way was simple elegant and perfect

get over not liking ties

 

[crassbonanza]

You wanna further blow your own mind?

At 5v5 The Kings were

1st in CF%
1st in SF%
4th in GF%
5th in xGF%

for the season

8th Net PP
4th in Regulation Wins (37) but 15th in ROW (38)

Calgary was 16th in RW (32) but 8th in ROW (41) and

THAT RIGHT THERE is where the margin can be seen


they missed the playoffs by a single point because they wouldn't win a damn game when it mattered and Calgary and Vancouver wouldn't lose down the stretch

I hate that season so much.

Bizarro Season.

The whole post cup stretch for the Kings was weird, from 2014-15 to 2016-17 at 5v5 the Kings were:

1st in CF% with 55.57%(Second was Nashville with 52.21%)
1st in SF% with 54.63%(Second was Pitt with 52.38%)
8th in GF% with 52.56%(First was Washington with 56.65%)
1st in xGF% with 54.25(Second was Pitt with 54.44%)

The team was every bit still a dominant possession force, but a variety of factors led to them only making the playoffs once and Bluc taking over.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Roy is so different from Durzi. I can’t imagine the Kings sitting Roy for Durzi. Roy has been arguably the best all-around defenseman for the Kings over the past two seasons.

Durzi and Walker are both offensive defensemen, so they’re likely competing for the same spot in October. Out of Durzi, Walker, and Spence I would pick Spence, but he’s likely gonna draw the short straw due to his ability to clear waivers.

I like Spence over basically everyone in the org but Clarke and Doughty but it's not going to hurt him to play as Ontario's true #1 d for a full year and learn to completely dominate offensively as well until some of the slots get sorted out.

Sure he can help the Kings too but why let him rot on the third pair/HS?

I know it's a little crazy to think about but remember THIS was his FIRST pro season! Crazy.

I say this year you play Durzi, let walker recoup some value and move him, let spence slide in the void when it happens. That leaves Doughty-Roy-Durzi, 9 games of Clarke down the right side, Walker as 7D or shifting to the left.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Very true. I do think he will eventually grow into a solid D man. It will just take a lot of time. Here or in another organization. He's pretty young and has a tremendous upside, but needs more experience, much like the rest of the roster.

on the defensive side, you mean? I"m not sure he ever figures that part out at a higher than average level. And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with being a Colin Miller, a Brandon Montour, a Kevin Shattenkirk.

 

[King'sPawn]

I literally did the conversion back to the W=2 L=0 T=1 to show that the Kings were the better team. Why make things more complicated.

the old way was simple elegant and perfect

get over not liking ties

I said nothing about disliking ties.

I dislike "bonus points". Or some games being worth more in the standings than others.

I'm all for ties if all games are equal value in points.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

on the defensive side, you mean? I"m not sure he ever figures that part out at a higher than average level. And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with being a Colin Miller, a Brandon Montour, a Kevin Shattenkirk.

Yes, he's young. I like him, he's not afraid to make a mistake and I gravitate to those type of players as long as they are learning and growing. I want him to push further than the players mentioned above because he's had flashes of brilliance followed by WTF.... Contrast that players who make the same bone head plays over and over and over again over a few seasons and never change. I think he's gonna be solid but it will take some time. This org is so defensive by design, I think this is a good place for him to grow into an all around D man.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I said nothing about disliking ties.

I dislike "bonus points". Or some games being worth more in the standings than others.

I'm all for ties if all games are equal value in points.

I call it a winner point, but if you don't want whatever that point is, then they have to go back to either 5v5 OT for 5min, or have no OT like the league had for a while back in the day. 4v4 changes the game too much, and 3v3 completely alters the game. How is Ari 6-3, or NJ 5-4, in OT this year, while Cgy is 4-9, or StL is 4-8? It's a different event than the first 60min of the game. You have to reward a team for being tied at the end of 60min of regulation play if you're going to take players off the ice to open up the offense in OT.

And I'm of the belief that a 3-2-1-0 system wouldn't make much difference. Certainly don't think any teamn is going to be less conservative if they can get 3pts for a win. You can go down 3pts if you lose. The balance is the same as it's ever been. What's the incentive to go for it? How does it decrease the want to play for OT, where you give up 2pts, but get 1? That's a better deal than giving up 3 and getting 0. The good teams will still be good, the average will be average, and the bad will never not be bad, no matter the system. If your season comes down to what you did in OT/SO, than you're an average team. Good teams don't let their season be dictated by what they do for 5min at 3v3.

 

[Statto]

I like Spence over basically everyone in the org but Clarke and Doughty but it's not going to hurt him to play as Ontario's true #1 d for a full year and learn to completely dominate offensively as well until some of the slots get sorted out.

Sure he can help the Kings too but why let him rot on the third pair/HS?

I know it's a little crazy to think about but remember THIS was his FIRST pro season! Crazy.

I say this year you play Durzi, let walker recoup some value and move him, let spence slide in the void when it happens. That leaves Doughty-Roy-Durzi, 9 games of Clarke down the right side, Walker as 7D or shifting to the left.

I’m not convinced in your choices but your thought process is fair . Sorry, I forgot to say the obligatory “you’re an idiot for having a different opinion”


I personally think you just let them battle it out in camp and be open to moving one of (Roy & Durzi) in a trade package for a high value piece between now and the TDL - so I’m not talking about a pick but one of the key missing roles. I say those two for differing reasons, mainly because I think Durzi is at max trade value and Spence goes past him very soon, if he’s not there already. Roy is one dimensional and a new LHD can fill his ‘solid guy’ role (with more snarl) from the other side whilst Doughty can be the premier shutdown guy as Clarke evolves into our main offensive weapon. As always I’m planning get 2 years out, so because Roy becomes obsolete by 23/4 it’s time to move him (between now and the TDL) because we need to room on the blueline to get these guys bedded in. Also, as Clarke emerges we won’t need a DurzI type pp specialist, so a Spence type works better as a roster fit. If Clarke isn’t emerging we have bigger issues than trading Durzi too soon so we have to plan as if he will succeed. As I’ve said before I don’t hate Durzi and won’t be crying if we keep him. I think we need to prepare for a big push in 23/24 and this is how I’d juggle the blue line over the next few months. We have to start making moves but expecting it all done by September isn’t realistic as the other teams need to play ball.

Walker for a pick is fine and using him as 7D to show he’s fit makes sense. Spence‘ season means Faber is someone we can also afford to move, not just Durzi, he’s certainly someone that has high trade value currently. It can’t be ruled out.

I’m probably wrong on all points and will have a different opinion tomorrow because it’s so complicated

We will have realize if we trade for a 30g scorer, LHD and/or a goalie… we will possibly/probably lose more than one young RHD and it will be a good player. Those are the pieces that will interest teams and who we let go will be determined by a whole range of factors. It’s also guaranteed that no matter who gets moved at least half this board will lose their shit

 

[Reaper45]

Did someone mention bringing back ties? All for it. This loser point shit has got to go.

 

[Fishhead]

I was always fine with ties. If they wanted to reward wins more I wouldn't mind something like:

3 points for a win and 1 for a tie
OT back to 4v4
OT is 10 minutes long. Hell, that would be shorter than most shootouts.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Did someone mention bringing back ties? All for it. This loser point shit has got to go.

Bonus Point

 

[YP44]

Bonus Point

Bonus for losing point

 

[KingsFan7824]

Bonus for losing point

That's the thing though, you don't get the point for losing. Teams split the two points if tied after 60min, as it always has been either at the end of 60min with no OT, or after still being tied at the end of 5v5 OT. The extra point comes from winning one of the other two events. Both teams have a point once regulation is over. The only way you lose it is if you give up a EN goal in OT. You don't get the point for the act of losing in OT or the SO.

The problem is that people still see OT/SO as a continuation of the game that just happened, but it isn't. They are separate events designed to increase goal scoring, because too many people cried in the dead puck era. Too many systems. It's not unorganized Canadian pond hockey anymore. Wah, wah, wah.

 

[All The Kings Men]

That's the thing though, you don't get the point for losing. Teams split the two points if tied after 60min, as it always has been either at the end of 60min with no OT, or after still being tied at the end of 5v5 OT. The extra point comes from winning one of the other two events. Both teams have a point once regulation is over. The only way you lose it is if you give up a EN goal in OT. You don't get the point for the act of losing in OT or the SO.

The problem is that people still see OT/SO as a continuation of the game that just happened, but it isn't. They are separate events designed to increase goal scoring, because too many people cried in the dead puck era. Too many systems. It's not unorganized Canadian pond hockey anymore. Wah, wah, wah.

Yup.

Bonus points.

 

[kingsfan28]

You wanna further blow your own mind?

At 5v5 The Kings were

1st in CF%
1st in SF%
4th in GF%
5th in xGF%

for the season

8th Net PP
4th in Regulation Wins (37) but 15th in ROW (38)

Calgary was 16th in RW (32) but 8th in ROW (41) and

THAT RIGHT THERE is where the margin can be seen


they missed the playoffs by a single point because they wouldn't win a damn game when it mattered and Calgary and Vancouver wouldn't lose down the stretch

I hate that season so much.

Bizarro Season.

Was that the same season the Ducks had like 17 OT/SO wins and made the playoffs off of that?

I think everyone would've been ok if they just made the playoffs in 2015 and lost in the first round . They were just spent, and Sutter going to the whip the final 2 weeks didn't help much either.

 

[YP44]

That's the thing though, you don't get the point for losing. Teams split the two points if tied after 60min, as it always has been either at the end of 60min with no OT, or after still being tied at the end of 5v5 OT. The extra point comes from winning one of the other two events. Both teams have a point once regulation is over. The only way you lose it is if you give up a EN goal in OT. You don't get the point for the act of losing in OT or the SO.

The problem is that people still see OT/SO as a continuation of the game that just happened, but it isn't. They are separate events designed to increase goal scoring, because too many people cried in the dead puck era. Too many systems. It's not unorganized Canadian pond hockey anymore. Wah, wah, wah.

I get it, i just don't like it. OT/SO should be a continuation.

 

[YP44]

You wanna further blow your own mind?

At 5v5 The Kings were

1st in CF%
1st in SF%
4th in GF%
5th in xGF%

for the season

8th Net PP
4th in Regulation Wins (37) but 15th in ROW (38)

Calgary was 16th in RW (32) but 8th in ROW (41) and

THAT RIGHT THERE is where the margin can be seen


they missed the playoffs by a single point because they wouldn't win a damn game when it mattered and Calgary and Vancouver wouldn't lose down the stretch

I hate that season so much.

Bizarro Season.

I was at the Flames game in Calgary at the end of the year. The Dome was louder with the Flames knocking out the kings than I have ever witnessed live, and I was at two 04 playoff games. One against Tampa in which the Flames won via shut out.
Oddly Richards was arguably LA's best forward that game.

That season was F'd

 

[Statto]

Yup.

Bonus points.

It’s semantics though isn’t it, both views are valid It’s purely based on perspective. I very much preferred the old system and a tie after 5 mins of OT. There is nothing wrong with a tie and I’ve never understood why it’s viewed as a problem. The only valid argument for it IMO would be that it ‘may’ encourage more goals but that is something you cannot prove in any way because we simply can never know if they game will have played out any different under a different point system.

I don’t think it makes any difference at all to the players, but It may affect coaching which by it’s nature is usually conservative. As such I think it probably has an impact that reduces scoring late in games as coaches usually want to make sure they get ‘something’ from the game. So, 100% I’d go back BUT at the same time it’s not as bad as some make out and there are many problems in the game far more pressing than bonus/loser points.

Sorry, one day I will write a concise post.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think WRT 'the point' people have run simulations of the standings with the 3-point system and other systems and the standings rarely change and rarely significantly, the examples we come up with in this thread are the only ones that seem to actually change the playoff landscape altogether, everything else is just a matter of hardly a standings position or two.

Sure they're stark for reasons and I'll never not be annoyed by 2015 for the Kings at the very least but every year there's a team with some overtime Tinkerbell bullshit and a team with overtime hockey god curses and we should mostly just come to accept it as without a system that facilitates significant change, Bettman ain't gonna fix what's not broken, especially with the arguably-artificial visual parity it brings.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In March & April of 2015, the Kings suffered 7 losses in which they scored one goal or less (they were shutout twice). Their flaccid offense, which ranked 20th out of 30 teams, was their ultimate undoing. Only three Kings scored 20+ goals that season, and they didn't get much production from the blueline beyond Doughty and Muzzin.

That version of the Kings was a boring hockey team that simply couldn't finish.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Did someone mention bringing back ties? All for it. This loser point shit has got to go.

No thanks. I'd rather get rid of the point system entirely go W-L.