Jason Lewis: If Nick Shore Is so Good, Why Do His Numbers Look Bad?

Shore will still be the replacement for Lewis next year. I don't mind what he's doing right now except for his obvious low offensive production, which you obviously mentioned

Anyone stuck on a line with Stne Hands Lewis and Derpy Brown is going to have to do a much better job convincing the coach it's not his fault.

Gibson let in all but one shot in the shootout

Great selection fans. Well done.

The problem with Shore is he does not make players around him better, and that is one of the main roles a center plays. He just doesn't have great vision or play making ability. He is fine as the 4th line center and PK guy, but he needs to produce more to be the 3rd line C. Nic Dowd right now has those skills. We won't know if it translates yet to the NHL, but I sure would like to see if he could. Hopefully Dowd will be Vinny's replacement next season. Shore can stay on the 4th line and be fine.

Shore isn't simply having "bad luck offensively." When the sample size is something large like half of a season or more, you're not having bad luck; you're just bad. Fans tend to want to believe that their players are better than they are and that the reason why the numbers don't reflect it is down to bad luck, but they're usually fooling themselves. Remember when Brown was simply having "bad luck" for half a season... then had it for another half season... then another?

Shore's offense may improve over time (though I'm not holding my breath), but it won't be because of "luck" correcting itself. It'll be because he figures out something that he hasn't learned yet, which is how to be effective offensively in the NHL. He's a young guy, so he has potential to improve, but he also has potential to not pan out as an NHL player, and chalking struggles up to bad luck is like suggesting that he's already arrived and just isn't being rewarded for what he's already figured out, which is far from the case.

Gibson let in all but one shot in the shootout

Great selection fans. Well done.
- KINGS67

He did play well tonight ...good call !

He did play well tonight ...good call !
- rubberduckies

yes he did! Quick and Gibson combine for the shutout! Gibson is an unproven goalie but shows great potential.

He did play well tonight ...good call !
- rubberduckies

That toe save Gibson made was awesome.

He did play well tonight ...good call !
- rubberduckies

That was yesterday, when he looked like poop in the shootout. Where were you then?... Both Quick and gibson played very well today. I'll give credit when it's due, But not often when it comes from the team down south

That was yesterday, when he looked like poop in the shootout. Where were you then?... Both Quick and gibson played very well today. I'll give credit when it's due, But not often when it comes from the team down south
- KINGS67

Did you drop out or get your GED ?

Good blog, Jason. Thanks for doing that.

I guess our disagreement stems from what we think the role of the 4th line of the Kings should be.

In seasons past, the Kings 3rd line has typically been the defensive shut-down line, with Stoll and Lewis as the mainstays of that line. Stoll and Lewis were both exceptional at defense-first offense, as evidenced by their extended time on the PK. Shore tried to fill the skates of Stoll after his departure, and he hasn't been able to replace him at at faceoffs or on the PK, both of which are essential for defensive centers. It wouldn't hurt to chip in a few goals here and there as well, another area where Stoll and Lewis were able to contribute, but Shore has not. In order to address this deficiency, Lombardi acquired Lecavalier, and he has fit in nicely. He is still acclimating to his defensive role on the Kings, but so far he looks like an improvement.

The Kings are never going to get much scoring out of the 4th line. If they can get 15 goals out of the three combined players in a season, they did pretty good. Ideally, the role of the 4th line is to go out and wear down the other team's resilience through heavy forechecking and body contact. My ideal 4th line is Clifford-Andreoff-Nolan. They can eat 10-11 minutes per game, and all three are capable of putting solid body contact on the opposition's top defensive pairing (match-ups are key, thankfully Sutter is excellent at match ups). As long as they don't get scored on regularly, then they are more effective than a low-contact, puck-possession 4th line, since their ice time earns dividends for the top-six.

If Shore can improve his faceoffs to Stoll-like levels, and improve at the PK to become a top choice on special teams, then I'm all for keeping him in the lineup as 3rd line center once Lecavalier retires. However, on a team like the Kings, the contributions that he brings to the lineup just aren't enough to warrant a spot in the lineup. Clifford, Andreoff, and Nolan all bring that extra physicality that Shore does not to make them ideal for the 4th line. Once Clifford returns to the lineup, I would like to see Shore go back to Ontario to work more on his penalty killing and faceoffs. He's just not ready for the NHL yet.

Did you drop out or get your GED ?
- rubberduckies

Good blog, Jason. Thanks for doing that.

I guess our disagreement stems from what we think the role of the 4th line of the Kings should be.

In seasons past, the Kings 3rd line has typically been the defensive shut-down line, with Stoll and Lewis as the mainstays of that line. Stoll and Lewis were both exceptional at defense-first offense, as evidenced by their extended time on the PK. Shore tried to fill the skates of Stoll after his departure, and he hasn't been able to replace him at at faceoffs or on the PK, both of which are essential for defensive centers. It wouldn't hurt to chip in a few goals here and there as well, another area where Stoll and Lewis were able to contribute, but Shore has not. In order to address this deficiency, Lombardi acquired Lecavalier, and he has fit in nicely. He is still acclimating to his defensive role on the Kings, but so far he looks like an improvement.

The Kings are never going to get much scoring out of the 4th line. If they can get 15 goals out of the three combined players in a season, they did pretty good. Ideally, the role of the 4th line is to go out and wear down the other team's resilience through heavy forechecking and body contact. My ideal 4th line is Clifford-Andreoff-Nolan. They can eat 10-11 minutes per game, and all three are capable of putting solid body contact on the opposition's top defensive pairing (match-ups are key, thankfully Sutter is excellent at match ups). As long as they don't get scored on regularly, then they are more effective than a low-contact, puck-possession 4th line, since their ice time earns dividends for the top-six.

If Shore can improve his faceoffs to Stoll-like levels, and improve at the PK to become a top choice on special teams, then I'm all for keeping him in the lineup as 3rd line center once Lecavalier retires. However, on a team like the Kings, the contributions that he brings to the lineup just aren't enough to warrant a spot in the lineup. Clifford, Andreoff, and Nolan all bring that extra physicality that Shore does not to make them ideal for the 4th line. Once Clifford returns to the lineup, I would like to see Shore go back to Ontario to work more on his penalty killing and faceoffs. He's just not ready for the NHL yet.
- tkecanuck341

I think your concerns are legitimate. Some of these are going to have to be a wait and see scenario. Can Shore turn his offense up with more experience? Can he improve his faceoffs? We shall see.

If Shore slips, the Kings do have a nice player in the minors with a pretty darn good skill set right now in Nic Dowd.

Shore isn't simply having "bad luck offensively." When the sample size is something large like half of a season or more, you're not having bad luck; you're just bad. Fans tend to want to believe that their players are better than they are and that the reason why the numbers don't reflect it is down to bad luck, but they're usually fooling themselves. Remember when Brown was simply having "bad luck" for half a season... then had it for another half season... then another?

Shore's offense may improve over time (though I'm not holding my breath), but it won't be because of "luck" correcting itself. It'll be because he figures out something that he hasn't learned yet, which is how to be effective offensively in the NHL. He's a young guy, so he has potential to improve, but he also has potential to not pan out as an NHL player, and chalking struggles up to bad luck is like suggesting that he's already arrived and just isn't being rewarded for what he's already figured out, which is far from the case.
- Osprey

It's not just that he has a low on ice 5v5 shooting percentage which makes me say he has bad luck. It's the fact that he has one of the lowest on-ice save percentages, PLUS the shooting percentage, PLUS the fact that he has one of the best scoring chance and shot suppression rates on the team.

That's a trifecta of frustration. One or two of those things are going to correct themselves either in the way of less goals against or more goals for. You simply cannot have a team low on ice shooting/save percentage forever, on top of having bad goals against while having the lowest scoring chances and high scoring chances against on the team. That's too many unsustainable things all at once, would you not agree?

I think your concerns are legitimate. Some of these are going to have to be a wait and see scenario. Can Shore turn his offense up with more experience? Can he improve his faceoffs? We shall see.

If Shore slips, the Kings do have a nice player in the minors with a pretty darn good skill set right now in Nic Dowd.
- Jason_Lewis