Speculation: LA Kings Offseason Thread

[YP44]

The 5 riskiest moves of the NHL offseason and what they mean for 2023-24

Teams looking to climb out of the depths of their division, or push for a Stanley Cup, have made this summer's riskiest moves.

theathletic.com

Um, ok.

no mention of Spence. They make it sound like LA is putting all its eggs in the Clarke basket.

I really don’t understand how anyone with a pulse could watch a Kings game and infer that Drew isn’t head & shoulders better than any other defensemen on the Kings roster.

More often than not, he is the best defensemen on the ice for either team when he plays. Dude is criminally under rated and under appreciated due to his contract being 2-3M higher than it probably should be.

I also would add due to the fact his offensive numbers are not elite and a lot of stats or models weight heavily to this.

 

[johnjm22]

The reason that stat card is so low for Doughty is because their model tends to overweight offense.

It's also a projection for this upcoming season, not last season. So his age weighs on the model as well.

Doughty's mobility has declined, and it's affected his offensive ability at ES.

 

[bland]

“Stat only” junkie…. It’s also a cherry picking of stats view. The opinion of someone that obviously never actually watched a game.

I don't mean to be insulting personally, but I think there is a fundamental shift in the credible analysis of this sport (and all sports for that matter) towards the collection of data and away from what really makes the difference in winning.

There is a whole generation of fans who don't understand the difference between talent and winning. Just the other day someone on the main board laughably suggested taking a ring off the Cup to add a list of hall of famers who have never won it. The single biggest problem the NHL has are the fans who insist on changing it all the time, and the current now is overwhelmingly flowing with people who look at numbers and are baffled by how they don't translate into success. Its getting worse and worse every year.

 

[johnjm22]

The single biggest problem the NHL has are the fans who insist on changing it all the time, and the current now is overwhelmingly flowing with people who look at numbers and are baffled by how they don't translate into success. Its getting worse and worse every year.

The biggest problem?

I don't know. I think the biggest problem the NHL has is too many play stoppages and not enough people playing the sport recreationally.

 

[BigKing]

I like Durzi but I don't think I'd have trading him as the riskiest move Blake made this Summer, let alone Top 5 risky move league wide.

 

[Kurrilino]

So if Byfield has another bad season are we going to say “he’s only 21 years old”

I personally don't judge players before they are 24-25

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The biggest problem?

I don't know. I think the biggest problem the NHL has is too many play stoppages and not enough people playing the sport recreationally.

These are interesting discussion points.

I'm not sure the flow of the game is a real issue--if anything, other sports have more stops/breaks that are significant.

I'm also not sure of the stats but IIRC rec participation was way up, especially south of Canada (where they're losing people to baseball). But it's definitely got as socioeconomic/bar to entry problem.

But I'm not sure that's a bar to entry either--look how popular the NFL is and while lots of people have played football it's not like soccer or baseball. And I know lots of younger people who never played hockey who are inexplicably into NHL video games and the game itself.

I DO think the NHL has a marketing and access problem though and every attempt to be more progressive results in angry dinosaurs. I think the game itself is pretty awesome but they need to take some cues from especially the NFL and even sort of the NBA as far as getting star players in each market some face time. And I agree with @bland to the extent that as much as I hate the 'just watch the game' arguments there are plenty of stats folks who reduce the game to numbers like the matrix without any value of intangibles or actual visual evidence, too much emphasis on 'rationalizing' hockey. Although I'm certainly not as anti-stat as he is the attempts to explain hockey as a set of numbers is pretty brutal and dissonant and it doesn't help that most of those personalities are smug as f***.

 

[johnjm22]

These are interesting discussion points.

I'm not sure the flow of the game is a real issue--if anything, other sports have more stops/breaks that are significant.

I'm also not sure of the stats but IIRC rec participation was way up, especially south of Canada (where they're losing people to baseball). But it's definitely got as socioeconomic/bar to entry problem.

But I'm not sure that's a bar to entry either--look how popular the NFL is and while lots of people have played football it's not like soccer or baseball. And I know lots of younger people who never played hockey who are inexplicably into NHL video games and the game itself.

I DO think the NHL has a marketing and access problem though and every attempt to be more progressive results in angry dinosaurs. I think the game itself is pretty awesome but they need to take some cues from especially the NFL and even sort of the NBA as far as getting star players in each market some face time. And I agree with @bland to the extent that as much as I hate the 'just watch the game' arguments there are plenty of stats folks who reduce the game to numbers like the matrix without any value of intangibles or actual visual evidence, too much emphasis on 'rationalizing' hockey. Although I'm certainly not as anti-stat as he is the attempts to explain hockey as a set of numbers is pretty brutal and dissonant and it doesn't help that most of those personalities are smug as f***.

I don't think the play stoppage logic can apply equally to all sports. For example, I think play stoppages are part of what makes football good. But it's different in hockey.

Bad hockey games are when you have one whistle after another. Puck out of play. Face off. False face off. Do it again. Offsides. Icing etc. Yuck. Long sequences without play stoppages improve the product. That's part of the reason why 3 on 3 is more exciting.

I'll never agree the NHL has a marketing problem or needs to "market its stars better". No one is going to get into hockey because of an advertisement.

Generally speaking, hockey is most popular in areas where people play hockey. You can find outliers like Nashville or Vegas where it's somewhat popular, but there's obvious reasons for that.

I think the problem with the soccer analogy is that America doesn't have the top soccer league. So people playing soccer doesn't necessarily lead to popularity for the MLS.

Football is kind of a different animal from all the other sports IMO. It's uniquely entertaining as a spectator sport, and translates extremally well to TV. While its star players are highly visible QB's that influence every play and always have the ball.

 

[SmytheKing]

I really don’t understand how anyone with a pulse could watch a Kings game and infer that Drew isn’t head & shoulders better than any other defensemen on the Kings roster.

More often than not, he is the best defensemen on the ice for either team when he plays. Dude is criminally under rated and under appreciated due to his contract being 2-3M higher than it probably should be.

I'd suggest that it's because almost everyone who isn't involved in scouting NHL teams doesn't have the time to watch more than highlights or read stats. The same goes for all of us who say Erik Karlsson doesn't play any defense or so and so is overrated. We simply do not watch enough of other teams to make a decently informed opinion of them.

We see maybe 20 minutes of footage every year and create a narrative based on that and what other people who also watch 20 minutes of footage of them say. It's the reason why fans always say their guys are underrated around the league. We're the only ones that watch them enough (and we're biased too).

So, to your point, I don't think those people with a pulse DO WATCH a Kings game.

 

[Sol]

I personally don't judge players before they are 24-25

That’s nuts lol. I think it’s safe to judge high draft picks who go top 3 early. If they go that early because they’re supposed to be really good. I don’t think there was a question in anyones mind about doughty and Kopitar in their rookie year that they were going to be really good players.

 

[Sol]

no mention of Spence. They make it sound like LA is putting all its eggs in the Clarke basket.


I also would add due to the fact his offensive numbers are not elite and a lot of stats or models weight heavily to this.

Eh I think the biggest issue with Drew is that he’s become super inconsistent. Don’t know if it’s age or he just doesn’t have that drive but there’s many games where he’s absolutely coasting imo. It can also be he plays too much. Drew when he tries is definitely the best dman but to me that doesn’t happen often enough. I think they’d get more out of drew by cutting his PP and ice time as a whole. He’s not good on the PP as it is.

 

[Kurrilino]

That’s nuts lol. I think it’s safe to judge high draft picks who go top 3 early. If they go that early because they’re supposed to be really good. I don’t think there was a question in anyones mind about doughty and Kopitar in their rookie year that they were going to be really good players.

I would say that is not too far off.
If we would have listened to the majority, Kempe would score 40 goals for someone else.
Tage Thompson is another one, or just look at the peeps we gave away way too early like Cernak or Middleton.
Kupari and Vilardi will be another example

 

[Statto]

There is a whole generation of fans who don't understand the difference between talent and winning. Just the other day someone on the main board laughably suggested taking a ring off the Cup to add a list of hall of famers who have never won it. The single biggest problem the NHL has are the fans who insist on changing it all the time, and the current now is overwhelmingly flowing with people who look at numbers and are baffled by how they don't translate into success. Its getting worse and worse every year.

Quite. It’s why if you want to win you take DD over EK any day of the week. I don’t care how many points he scores.

The most shocking thing about the HOF members being added to the cup idea was that the guy was serious. Possibly the most ridiculous ‘serious’ suggestion I can recall on the main board.

 

[FSL KINGS]

Quite. It’s why if you want to win you take DD over EK any day of the week. I don’t care how many points he scores.

The most shocking thing about the HOF members being added to the cup idea was that the guy was serious. Possibly the most ridiculous ‘serious’ suggestion I can recall on the main board.

Come on, guys like Lundqvist deserves a participation trophy.

 

[Sol]

I would say that is not too far off.
If we would have listened to the majority, Kempe would score 40 goals for someone else.
Tage Thompson is another one, or just look at the peeps we gave away way too early like Cernak or Middleton.
Kupari and Vilardi will be another example

Bro lol I’d love it if people stop acting like Kempe is the rule and not the exception. On no planet what Kempe has done is normal. Forwards of his size tend to be show who they are by the time they are 20. Tage thompson is 6’6… there’s a reason why his story is unique. Stop using exceptions to the rule as a point of reference. It’s immensely stupid.

 

[bland]

Come on, guys like Lundqvist deserves a participation trophy.

Its the McDavid crowd trying to justify scoring over winning, and SO many younger fans are getting lost in the plot that the coverage - broadcast, print and online - is already shifting to fit the new generations grasp of the game. Which I firmly believe is flash over substance, highlights over perseverance. The game is suffering while constantly trying to change to meet fans dumbed-down expectations.

Every generation thinks that the new one is clueless, its just part of aging. The difference here is that there is an electronic trail an equator long of nonsense and folks now are less interested in learning than being supported.

 

[Statto]

I don't mean to be insulting personally, but I think there is a fundamental shift in the credible analysis of this sport (and all sports for that matter) towards the collection of data and away from what really makes the difference in winning.

There is a whole generation of fans who don't understand the difference between talent and winning. Just the other day someone on the main board laughably suggested taking a ring off the Cup to add a list of hall of famers who have never won it. The single biggest problem the NHL has are the fans who insist on changing it all the time, and the current now is overwhelmingly flowing with people who look at numbers and are baffled by how they don't translate into success. It’s getting worse and worse every year.

I agree just being more specific and it wasn’t taken as an insult. Also, I was meaning it was that Twitter post using a model cherry picking stats, not you, in case it wasn’t clear.

The stats explosion is interesting and fun and I absolutely love it. But you can’t just pick the stats without watching teams and players over many games. Stats should support what you see & what you see should be supported by the stats. When that isn’t the case, that is when it warrants in depth analysis. Stats are too readily, easily and deliberately misused and fans love to over think it. Before you can properly understand the stats you absolutely have to understand the game and by understand & I mean properly understand it technically because the numbers otherwise get misused.

A simple example being a guy making 10 hits in a game sounds great, except on 8 of those hits he takes himself out of the play and his team gives away a scoring chance on each occasion. Yet lots of people would credit him as being a great physical player looking at the hits as ‘proof’… and so on. So yep, I completely agree.

 

[Statto]

Eh I think the biggest issue with Drew is that he’s become super inconsistent. Don’t know if it’s age or he just doesn’t have that drive but there’s many games where he’s absolutely coasting imo. It can also be he plays too much. Drew when he tries is definitely the best dman but to me that doesn’t happen often enough. I think they’d get more out of drew by cutting his PP and ice time as a whole. He’s not good on the PP as it is.

If they reduce his ice time watch his consistency improve. It’s a classic sign of fatigue and given the stupid minutes he plays it’s not unreasonable to think if they come down the consistency will go up. Unfortunately I don’t see them telling hIm that he will play less.

 

[psych3man]

Football is kind of a different animal from all the other sports IMO. It's uniquely entertaining as a spectator sport, and translates extremally well to TV. While its star players are highly visible QB's that influence every play and always have the ball.

Football became America's sport because it is so easy to bet on in so many ways; fantasy, spreads, by quarters, squares, etc. And that happened way before the explosion of online betting.

 

[johnjm22]

Football became America's sport because it is so easy to bet on in so many ways; fantasy, spreads, by quarters, squares, etc. And that happened way before the explosion of online betting.

I think it's a multitude of factors. That may be another one of them.

The sport seems to just fit the modern entertainment landscape so well.

There's way less games, so each game feels like an event.

Fantasy football also seemed to catch on earlier and do much better than other fantasy sports.

 

[JeanBlanc]

Football became America's sport because it is so easy to bet on in so many ways; fantasy, spreads, by quarters, squares, etc. And that happened way before the explosion of online betting.

And that's true because of all the stoppages in play.

 

[bland]

And that's true because of all the stoppages in play.

Which also makes it more reasonable to analyze via statistics. Its a single event sport, easily quantifiable.

It makes sense to study things like which defensive packages are more often successful to implement against specific formations. But a sport that changes on the fly with different lines having different intentions, supported by varying defensive pairs against a team with equally revolving personnel, its just not defined enough to really matter. The results are more generalizations than specifics, and those generalizations are readily apparent to the eye. If anything the hyper specificity of stats distort NHL reality instead of supporting it.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Corey Pronman's NHL Pipeline Rankings: No. 20 Kings' system is trending downwards

Ranking the top prospects and under-23 players in the organization. Plus, what to expect of every player.

theathletic.com

 

[Kingfan1967]

I would say that is not too far off.
If we would have listened to the majority, Kempe would score 40 goals for someone else.
Tage Thompson is another one, or just look at the peeps we gave away way too early like Cernak or Middleton.
Kupari and Vilardi will be another example

Giving up on players is trading them for picks or other prospects, (or even subjecting them to waivers) trading them for more established players is just trying improve a team.
Faber+ for Fiala was not giving up on Faber
B Schenn+ for Richards was not giving up on Schenn
Vilardi and Kupari+ for PLD was not giving up
Exposing Hickey to waivers was giving up

 

[kingsboy11]

Corey Pronman's NHL Pipeline Rankings: No. 20 Kings' system is trending downwards

Ranking the top prospects and under-23 players in the organization. Plus, what to expect of every player.

theathletic.com

His criteria is very weird. Players 22 and younger are eligible, and if that's the case if Byfield, Clarke, Spence, Kaliyev and Bjornfot round out your top 5 then surely they'd be ranked higher than 20th right? If you rank our pool by how we've voted our guys then I can absolutely see our pool being ranked so low.