It is a constant debate within the traditionalist versus analytics realm.
If this player is so good, why aren't his numbers very good?
The Kings and their fans are experiencing this very debate this year internally with young centerman Nick Shore.
On this very blog we have talked about how strong a player Shore has been, however, as the roster starts to take shape for a playoff run questions have risen up about how good Shore really is. Is he worth keeping in the lineup? With Lecavalier thrust into the fold, and a return to center by Trevor Lewis, Shore has found himself a healthy scratch at least once recently.
And to be fair, in a traditional view of it, Shore has nothing to be impressed about on the stat sheet.
He has just three goals, four assists, and seven points in his 46 games played this year. If you want to look at the worst stat ever, +/-, Shore is also a dash eight on the year. How can they keep this kid in the lineup? Sheesh he is terrible, give Andreoff the minutes! Better yet, keep Lewis at center, move Lecavalier up, and put Shore in the PB!
Not so fast.
This one can be tough to appreciate, and that is understandable.
Shore DOES need to improve offensively. I think that goes without questioning. However, one of the reasons he has been a mainstay on the roster is his defensive ability. He continues to be one of the best shot and scoring chance suppressing forwards on the L.A. Kings. He is also second on the team in faceoffs behind Anze Kopitar. While 51.4% is nothing amazing, he wins more than half the draws he takes. He also plays nearly a minute of his 13 minutes a game on the penalty kill, giving the Kings much needed variety and depth while down a man.
These are the obvious things. Now let's talk about the underlying things.
Shore has really really bad Goals For numbers. If pretty were ugly, Shore is a trainwreck. When he is on the ice, he and his linemates put up just 31% goals for. Yea, if a goal is scored while Shore is on the ice, seven times out of ten it is against him rather than for his team.
However, and this is the biggest however there can be, going by goals and goals against is a bit...inconclusive. It focuses on the outcome of the player rather than the process and probability. A goal against is a goal against. It's kind of like +/-. It takes nothing into account other than a goal was scored or a goal was given up. It is not really predictable in any way shape or form. A player could have a goal go in off a skate, it could be a puck a goalie should have stopped, etc. etc. but the only thing that will show up is a knock against their GA60 or their +/-. For example, there was a play in last week's game against San Jose where several players were victimized on the stat column who had nothing to do with the play.
Here is the end result of the play in question:
Jeez, how did Joe Pavelski get so wide open? Well, the Kings powerplay unit went for an ill-advised line change right as the Joe Thornton penalty expired. This was only the end result.
View post on imgur.com
Here is the gif of the play leading up to it. Muzzin pinches down, Brown goes to support, the puck is lost, Gaborik can't hold the puck in at the line and boom Joe Thornton is out of the box with a pursuing Ehrhoff. That is not the problem though. Dustin Brown, Vinny Lecavalier, and Marian Gaborik all go for a line change. You can see clearly here that those three were on the ice when the ACTUAL breakdown happened.
View post on imgur.com
Muzzin busts it to get back after getting caught deep, but is only there in time to pick up Hertl (who to be fair was his man), while a late changing Trevor Lewis/Nick Shore cannot get to the goal scorer Joe Pavelski in time.
This, by no means, was the fault of any of the players on the ice outside of perhaps Jake Muzzin for pinching down low and losing the puck battle. Gaborik, who failed to keep the puck in the zone and Brown who also helped lose the battle in the corner, got off before the dash was put next to their name
View post on imgur.com
Such are the ways of hockey. This is just one small play in a game. Also take into account goals that should have been stopped. A squeaker that went five hole. An unscreened glove side miff by the tender. It all counts the exact same.
Should Jonathan Quick have stopped this one?
Yea, he'd probably tell you he should have. Ergo, the minuses accredited to Kopitar, Toffoli, etc. etc. are probably misleading and not warranted.
For a player like Toffoli, who scores so frequently, those minuses will quickly correct themselves with any number of goals he scores that he probably shouldn't have. It all balances out in the end.
For most players.
When you are Nick Shore and Trevor Lewis, aka players with the worst goals for % and two players shooting at a healthy 2.64 and 3.45 shooting percentage at even strength, it means the world. Especially to a statistical category that relies heavily on the end result and not the more predictable process.
What is more predictable in evaluation is the amount of scoring chances, fenwick/corsi numbers a player gives up. You can attribute a certain amount of goals to poor luck, poor goaltending etc. but corsi is a bit more direct and predictable. There really is no "Bad luck" shot. A shot is a shot. You were trying to do that the whole time. As a player you did not accidentally shoot towards the net. It takes into account all the chances put towards net. All the scoring chance data we have takes into account chances direct towards net from anywhere in the low or high slot and between the circles.
With that in mind, Shore has exceptionally low CA60, (corsi against) SA60 (Shots against) FA60 (Fenwick against), and SCA60 (scoring chances against). Some of the best on the team in every category in fact, and it has been that way all season. The fact that teams happen to be scoring with him on the ice despite those low numbers is simply a bit of bad luck. When you look at on-ice save percentages + on-ice shooting percentages (represented via PDO) he has a 94.9, one of the worst on the team outside of Trevor Lewis. A 100.0 in this stat is considered standard break even luck.
The key element here is that things like corsi, fenwick, and scoring chance data, represents the process and the on-ice play more accurately than the finality of the play, aka goals against.
The criticism of Nick Shore's offense, as well as Trevor Lewis to a certain degree, is warranted. He does not score much and he probably needs to score more. He certainly generates chances and shots though, but a unsustainably low shooting percentage from he and his regular linemates for most of the year (Lewis and Brown, who ironically both have the lowest shooting percentages along with Shore), make for a pretty skewed looking statistical column. Simply put, you would expect, predictably, that Shore ends up the more useful player if he continues to limit opposing chances like he has, with the shooting percentage of his line taking a slight upturn.
If you looked at three goals, four assists, and seven points to go along with a dash seven, you're probably thinking this guy needs to sit in the pressbox in favor of Jordan Nolan or Andy Andreoff.
The simple fact with Shore is that he has done a LOT of really good work defensively for the Kings. That stuff will not show up on a stat column. However, his bad luck offensive numbers, coupled with his own lack of offensive numbers can put a real damper on the quality of player he really is. What is more predictable? That Shore continues to suppress shots and chances, or that he continues to score on about two of every 100 shots at 5v5? Hockey is a cruel mistress sometimes.
With Nolan and Andreoff comparatively, well, it's not even close in terms of a possession or scoring chance driven game. Which would you rather take a chance on or value in your lineup?
View post on imgur.com
View post on imgur.com
Darryl Sutter will probably scratch Nick Shore a few more times, and that's because he is Darryl Sutter and he now has a new veteran to play with in his lineup. Nevertheless, these scratches should not be interpreted as Shore being a bad player or having a bad year. He is actually one of the Kings best defensive players who is having the worst possible luck offensively. Given time, these offensive numbers will correct themselves, and Shore will emerge as an unquestioned quality bottom six center the Kings need moving forward.
Follow me on twitter for news and notes about the Kings and the NHL
Also be sure to like HockeyBuzz on facebook!
Los Angeles Kings Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»