Turcotte- time to worry?

[BigKing]

The Kings are actually a pretty fast team and, yes, were much better on the rush than in years past. We've all been saying that this would improve with better breakout passes and I feel we saw more structure breaking out of the zone this season versus last season where it was a constant half-clear/half-pass hail-mary attempt to hopefully spring someone. Adding Danault/Arvi helped as well since you had competent offensive players receiving those passes.

The Danault line and the Lizotte/Lemieux/Kaliyev line were good at cycling and getting in on the forecheck but this was not a team making a living on grinding out cycles. If they did and it went back to the point for a shot, it was an air ball.

 

[kingsholygrail]

So they get on base?

 

[2-4 Slashin]

That is demonstrably false. The Kings were one of the best teams in the league this year at generating shots off the rush.

View attachment 548979View attachment 548982View attachment 548983View attachment 548984

While the shots for at 5v5 may be true. We were still 23rd in goals for in that same analytic. It seems that the Shots for vs actual goals are two different things. If our team was made up of more pure goal scorers, our goals for, would be astronomical based on our shots on goal. When I am Perplexed over is the that we seem to have pure goal scorers when we get shorthanded breakaways but not 5v5. So perhaps it’s not that we don’t have goal scorers so much as a lack of something inside? Those analytics are quite telling but there’s still something missing

 

[lumbergh]

While the shots for at 5v5 may be true. We were still 23rd in goals for in that same analytic. It seems that the Shots for vs actual goals are two different things. If our team was made up of more pure goal scorers, our goals for, would be astronomical based on our shots on goal. When I am Perplexed over is the that we seem to have pure goal scorers when we get shorthanded breakaways but not 5v5. So perhaps it’s not that we don’t have goal scorers so much as a lack of something inside? Those analytics are quite telling but there’s still something missing

The Kings are also perplexed. The analytics team isn’t doing great. They don’t seem to know the difference between a shot that becomes a goal and a shot that does not. I’m also tickled when people use the expected goals advanced stat, because it’s so consistently off for the Kings.

Just because you take more shots doesn’t mean you score more goals than your opponent. The Kings have to find players that can score, not just shoot.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The good news is we're getting dangerously close to the part where they trade raw possession for raw finishing, like 2012.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

While the shots for at 5v5 may be true. We were still 23rd in goals for in that same analytic. It seems that the Shots for vs actual goals are two different things. If our team was made up of more pure goal scorers, our goals for, would be astronomical based on our shots on goal. When I am Perplexed over is the that we seem to have pure goal scorers when we get shorthanded breakaways but not 5v5. So perhaps it’s not that we don’t have goal scorers so much as a lack of something inside? Those analytics are quite telling but there’s still something missing

The Kings are also perplexed. The analytics team isn’t doing great. They don’t seem to know the difference between a shot that becomes a goal and a shot that does not. I’m also tickled when people use the expected goals advanced stat, because it’s so consistently off for the Kings.

Just because you take more shots doesn’t mean you score more goals than your opponent. The Kings have to find players that can score, not just shoot.

I responded to a specific contention that the Kings are still a cycle/forecheck team versus a rush team. I said nothing about expected goals or anything like that. The basic shot numbers separated into how the play developed (these are not “invented” formulas if that’s the objection to using microstats; they’re “traditional” numbers broken down into more specific categories) say that the Kings generate opportunities off the rush with the best in the league. They generate opportunities off the cycle/forecheck near the middle of the league (i.e., average). They are much closer to a “run-and-gun” team than a cycle/forecheck team. Just because they have trouble scoring doesn’t mean they aren’t playing that style.

It’s also very strange to use the Kings low shooting percentage as causal proof that “the analytics team isn’t doing great” and apparently doesn’t know the difference between shots that end up in the net and shots that don’t. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t but on-ice performance by the players doesn’t somehow create a causal link between the two. Sometimes teams run hot with shooting percentages all season and then regress backwards to the mean the next. Sometimes teams run cold with shooting percentages all season and regress upwards to the mean the next. Sometimes there’s a combination of one or the other along with a highly talented finishing team or a team that lacks any finishing talent. It’s impossible to pinpoint one factor specifically.

Maybe the Kings as currently constructed aren’t terribly talented when it comes to finishing talent but still ran into some bad luck when it comes to the puck going into the net. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. If goal scoring weren’t subject to some measure of fortune from game to game, month to month, and year to year, then players (and by extension, to a certain extent, teams) would be eerily consistent in goal scoring from year to year.

 

[Trash Panda]

The good news is we're getting dangerously close to the part where they trade raw possession for raw finishing, like 2012.

And players in the line of Turcotte are critical to generating high danger scoring chances off turnovers and forcheck pressure.

Funneling the puck to high danger areas with good timing is his bread and butter. He doesn’t make plays off skill, but reads.

Just need the kid to catch a break on the health front.

 

[lumbergh]

I responded to a specific contention that the Kings are still a cycle/forecheck team versus a rush team. I said nothing about expected goals or anything like that. The basic shot numbers separated into how the play developed (these are not “invented” formulas if that’s the objection to using microstats; they’re “traditional” numbers broken down into more specific categories) say that the Kings generate opportunities off the rush with the best in the league. They generate opportunities off the cycle/forecheck near the middle of the league (i.e., average). They are much closer to a “run-and-gun” team than a cycle/forecheck team. Just because they have trouble scoring doesn’t mean they aren’t playing that style.

It’s also very strange to use the Kings low shooting percentage as causal proof that “the analytics team isn’t doing great” and apparently doesn’t know the difference between shots that end up in the net and shots that don’t. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t but on-ice performance by the players doesn’t somehow create a causal link between the two. Sometimes teams run hot with shooting percentages all season and then regress backwards to the mean the next. Sometimes teams run cold with shooting percentages all season and regress upwards to the mean the next. Sometimes there’s a combination of one or the other along with a highly talented finishing team or a team that lacks any finishing talent. It’s impossible to pinpoint one factor specifically.

Maybe the Kings as currently constructed aren’t terribly talented when it comes to finishing talent but still ran into some bad luck when it comes to the puck going into the net. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. If goal scoring weren’t subject to some measure of fortune from game to game, month to month, and year to year, then players (and by extension, to a certain extent, teams) would be eerily consistent in goal scoring from year to year.

I wasn’t criticizing you about this. I’m just making a point that the Kings continue to struggle against the same problems year after year despite the use of analytics.

The Kings low shooting percentage is a perennial problem. They have not regressed to the mean year after year, so they have to make up for it by drastically outshooting the opponent.

 

[BringTheReign]

I wasn’t criticizing you about this. I’m just making a point that the Kings continue to struggle against the same problems year after year despite the use of analytics.

The Kings low shooting percentage is a perennial problem. They have not regressed to the mean year after year, so they have to make up for it by drastically outshooting the opponent.

I’d argue that the perennial problem is because of the types of players we target/have available to the coach, not the system or how we use analytics. We were never previously a transition offense/rush team, this is the payoff of a new system implemented by TMac.

Whether DL or Blake, the Kings typically build a team full of responsible two-way, high IQ players. It used to be with a focus on cycling, but now is focused on transition speed. I’d argue this is a good thing for being eventual playoff contenders, but it has the trade off that the highest skill, pure shooting talent players don’t typically fit that mold. That’s why we went out and got a player like Gaborik in 2014 once we felt comfortable that the rest of the team could make up for his defensive deficiencies.

Turcotte’s skill set makes a ton of sense given the blend of two-way responsibility, transition speed, and skill we’re looking for. That’s why it’s so shitty to see him keep getting hurt, as what he could be could really thrive in this style of hockey.

 

[Lt Dan]

I’d argue that the perennial problem is because of the types of players we target/have available to the coach, not the system or how we use analytics. We were never previously a transition offense/rush team, this is the payoff of a new system implemented by TMac.

Whether DL or Blake, the Kings typically build a team full of responsible two-way, high IQ players. It used to be with a focus on cycling, but now is focused on transition speed. I’d argue this is a good thing for being eventual playoff contenders, but it has the trade off that the highest skill, pure shooting talent players don’t typically fit that mold. That’s why we went out and got a player like Gaborik in 2014 once we felt comfortable that the rest of the team could make up for his defensive deficiencies.

Turcotte’s skill set makes a ton of sense given the blend of two-way responsibility, transition speed, and skill we’re looking for. That’s why it’s so shitty to see him keep getting hurt, as what he could be could really thrive in this style of hockey.

After that post, you are officially qualified to put a "Damn I'm good" bumper sticker on your vehicle.
Use it responsibly.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's very true, you can see exactly why they made the Turcotte pick when you see how this team plays. He's basically the living embodiment of it.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

It's very true, you can see exactly why they made the Turcotte pick when you see how this team plays. He's basically the living embodiment of it.

Watching Turcotte play reminded me of Adam Deadmarsh.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Watching Turcotte play reminded me of Adam Deadmarsh.

Ah man I hadn't even thought of that comparison. Recklessness and all. For sure.

 

[Trash Panda]

Watching Turcotte play reminded me of Adam Deadmarsh.

Only he is a little less psycho, and a touch more hockey sense.

Pretty good player comp, upside & all, tbh.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Only he is a little less psycho, and a touch more hockey sense.

Pretty good player comp, upside & all, tbh.

For scrapping I'd agree. But the guy plays like Blake Lizotte, who is about as crazy as I can remember a hockey player being.

He makes the average player SUPER uncomfortable by forcing them to board him repeatedly

 

[Trash Panda]

For scrapping I'd agree. But the guy plays like Blake Lizotte, who is about as crazy as I can remember a hockey player being.

He makes the average player SUPER uncomfortable by forcing them to board him repeatedly

Lizzo is in a galaxy of his own.

He is that damn fruit fly that ya keep smashing with the swatter, and keeps getting up to land on your sammich.

Utter psychopath.

 

[Surf Nutz]

Well it gets annoying to hear stuff like that, like it’s a blind hatred. Plus it’s not even close to being remotely true.

He always gives me a good debate so I give it back.

I just don’t get why you guys just don’t either ignore or scroll down.

dont think we didnt mostly

 

[Fishhead]

Lizzo is in a galaxy of his own.

He is that damn fruit fly that ya keep smashing with the swatter, and keeps getting up to land on your sammich.

Utter psychopath.

Give Lizotte more skill and he's Theo Fleury.

 

[Trash Panda]

Give Lizotte more skill and he's Theo Fleury.

More skill and an affinity for nose nachos.

 

[ricardfromage]

Turcotte = John Tonelli. Fast, skilled two way player who can be really difficult to take the puck away from. He puts a little more meat on his bones (at) and he would be a clone version of Tonto.

 

[tomd]

Turcotte = John Tonelli. Fast, skilled two way player who can be really difficult to take the puck away from. He puts a little more meat on his bones (at) and he would be a clone version of Tonto.

He'd need to grow another 2 inches as well...

 

[ricardfromage]

He'd need to grow another 2 inches as well...

Not really. Same heart and drive. Size doesn't always make that big of a difference in two way speed guys like Tonto and Turcs.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't recall John Tonelli being made of glass.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't recall John Tonelli being made of glass.

I do recall Justin Williams being made of glass, though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I do recall Justin Williams being made of glass, though.

Did he miss significant development time due to injuries like Turcotte has?

And Williams was an NHL regular at 19. Turcotte is 21 and isn’t going to be on an NHL roster next season.