Toggle sidebar

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

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
bland said:
"Expected Goals".

Blood boiling. You cannot use fancy stats to build a roster, good lord I cannot believe I read that garbage. Using stats as a metric is 100% purely reactive. A GM MUST be proactive. This just cements my opinion that this front office must go - no wonder they can't find room for kids, their play is based on trying to achieve certain statistical goals instead of growing an organization whil under the assumption that those stats actually mean something. Goddam joke of a franchise.

Fancy stats are opium for the unwashed masses. They remove the personal responsibility of decision making in favor of copying a statistical blueprint that is devoid of what makes hockey special from other sports.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with you, but the reality is every team in every sports league heavily uses analytics to build their roster. So don't think that any new regime would be any different, in fact it could be worse.

My issue with analytics is that it should be used as a tiebreaker when determining the value of a player and not the deciding factor. I've been watching the Kings for 30 years and I don't know if I remember a more useless player than Nick Shore, he couldn't score, he wasn't physical, he wasn't a defensive stopper, he just kind of took up space for 10-12 minutes a game. But his analytics said he should be a better player so he got over 200 mostly awful games with the Kings and a few other teams before the league finally realized he wasn't an NHL player. If you go strictly off of analytics you end up with Nick Shore's in your lineup.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Piston
In the end, I would prefer if Brown retired and took his guaranteed role within the franchise wherever that may be; however, there's no way you can say there is no sentimentality in sports. That is how GM's should try to approach the game, but it is impossible to get away from that bias. We are human and professional sports are run and played by humans. It may be the right move to lock the door and run away from Brown, but not many do, and it is unlikely to think if he requests a one year deal at a decent ask that we wouldn't give it to him... At the very least, this is far from the Mike Richards situation and the risk isn't that great.
 
Telos said:
In the end, I would prefer if Brown retired and took his guaranteed role within the franchise wherever that may be; however, there's no way you can say there is no sentimentality in sports. That is how GM's should try to approach the game, but it is impossible to get away from that bias. We are human and professional sports are run and played by humans. It may be the right move to lock the door and run away from Brown, but not many do, and it is unlikely to think if he requests a one year deal at a decent ask that we wouldn't give it to him... At the very least, this is far from the Mike Richards situation and the risk isn't that great.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from but it certainly does have a chance to spiral into a Richards situation. The Kings 2017 draft picks (specifically Vilardi and JAD) are both waiver eligible next season and roster spots could be tight. I don't think anyone wants to see Brown skating for the Ontario Reign next season but it could come to that if he completely falls off and the Kings don't want to risk losing certain players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
Herby said:
I see where you are coming from but it certainly does have a chance to spiral into a Richards situation. The Kings 2017 draft picks (specifically Vilardi and JAD) are both waiver eligible next season and roster spots could be tight. I don't think anyone wants to see Brown skating for the Ontario Reign next season but it could come to that if he completely falls off and the Kings don't want to risk losing certain players.
Click to expand...

In order for it to become "a Mike Richards situation" they would have to sign Brown to a 6 year contract extension at $5.75M per season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telos
I have no problem if Brown plays another year because he adds a lot to the room and as a mentor, BUT he needs to be utilized correctly which means 4th line and no special teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dick341
If we lose a decent prospect to the waiver wire, because we are still dragging around Brown next season, it will be a clear signal of the absence of a plan from management. On any level.

It would be a nostalgia-driven move made from feeling instead of logic.

I can’t believe it’s even being considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaymondReddington, ibleedkings, YAYSAY and 3 others
Telos said:
In the end, I would prefer if Brown retired and took his guaranteed role within the franchise wherever that may be; however, there's no way you can say there is no sentimentality in sports. That is how GM's should try to approach the game, but it is impossible to get away from that bias. We are human and professional sports are run and played by humans. It may be the right move to lock the door and run away from Brown, but not many do, and it is unlikely to think if he requests a one year deal at a decent ask that we wouldn't give it to him... At the very least, this is far from the Mike Richards situation and the risk isn't that great.
Click to expand...
I would suggest the fact that he hasn't already been put out to pasture IS the sentimentality he deserved. Just no extension, please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schmooley
Herby said:
I don't really disagree with you, but the reality is every team in every sports league heavily uses analytics to build their roster. So don't think that any new regime would be any different, in fact it could be worse.

My issue with analytics is that it should be used as a tiebreaker when determining the value of a player and not the deciding factor. I've been watching the Kings for 30 years and I don't know if I remember a more useless player than Nick Shore, he couldn't score, he wasn't physical, he wasn't a defensive stopper, he just kind of took up space for 10-12 minutes a game. But his analytics said he should be a better player so he got over 200 mostly awful games with the Kings and a few other teams before the league finally realized he wasn't an NHL player. If you go strictly off of analytics you end up with Nick Shore's in your lineup.
Click to expand...

Frankly, its the fact that Blake actually said "expected goals" instead of just "goals ". The implication there is that the analytics - which are purely optics - are judged to be below par. I see nothing wrong with the 5 x 5 offense whatsoever, but the PP needs an awful lot of help. And the biggest problem is the hesitancy to move the puck quickly from Kopitar and Doughty. I don't think anyone believes that analytics are going to help them decide to remove either from the first unit due to the "living legend" status both possess.

And the Shore point is dead on. I would also suggest that the opposite is something to be afraid of: players whose value isn't based on analytics won't be given the same chances that fancy stat darlings get. Simply having a higher volume of shots from close to the slot only theoretically correlates to success, its not a measure of quality, just quantity. And quantity is no indicator of anything without filtering through other indicators. So just trust your experience and don't let misleading, or potentially misleading data points have any undue influence.

Hockey is above all a game of passion and resiliency. Top players scoring, bottom players setting the pace and changing the tone. Momentum is so valuable, and there is no metric for making the right decision at the right time. Its assumed that those decisions will lead to a positive result that can be justified by a metric, but there just isn't one out there that measures heart and timing. The most important plays of the game don't always occur late in the third.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deaders Ghost and Steve Barnett
Telos said:
In the end, I would prefer if Brown retired and took his guaranteed role within the franchise wherever that may be; however, there's no way you can say there is no sentimentality in sports. That is how GM's should try to approach the game, but it is impossible to get away from that bias. We are human and professional sports are run and played by humans. It may be the right move to lock the door and run away from Brown, but not many do, and it is unlikely to think if he requests a one year deal at a decent ask that we wouldn't give it to him... At the very least, this is far from the Mike Richards situation and the risk isn't that great.
Click to expand...
The bad part about management is telling your buddies when it's over. We're going to find out if Blake can make the difficult decisions.
 
Telos said:
In the end, I would prefer if Brown retired and took his guaranteed role within the franchise wherever that may be; however, there's no way you can say there is no sentimentality in sports. That is how GM's should try to approach the game, but it is impossible to get away from that bias. We are human and professional sports are run and played by humans. It may be the right move to lock the door and run away from Brown, but not many do, and it is unlikely to think if he requests a one year deal at a decent ask that we wouldn't give it to him... At the very least, this is far from the Mike Richards situation and the risk isn't that great.
Click to expand...
We have Grundstrom. Having both Brown and Grundstrom is redundant. Grundy is restricted and could easily be resigned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom