Jason Lewis: Talking points from the first two LA Kings games of the season

Any idea if quick is going to do surgery or rehab?

Random thoughts:
-Green/forbort does not work (granted we all knew it wouldn't), I'm pleasantly surprised with most of what I've seen from Forbort so far, hopefully we see him with Gilbert (or Gravel)
-I've seen good things from Shore, Nolan, Setoguchi offensively. Today's morning skate had Purcell and Clifford scratched and Dowd & Pearson in. Purcell has shown nothing to me, and Clifford who we usually rate higher than your average grinder has looked the least of him Andreoff or Nolan, so I'm okay with this.
-It almost feels certain than within a week or two I will have to be going from us trading one or both of Kempe and a 1st for a mediocre goalie who is not Stanley Cup caliber.

Miller is available

Greene and McNaab are not getting the job done.

Nolan still can't accept a pass on his backhand and although he is fast and has a decent shot, he just isn't getting the job done.


No need to trade for a goalie. If the lines in front of JZ get sorted out the kings could get a lot better in a shorter time frame.

It would take some balls on the management and coaching side but what have we got to lose?

Carter - Kopitar - Setogoochi
Pearson - Kempe - Toffoli
Brown - Shore - Lewis
King - Dowd - Nolan

Doughty -Gravel
Muzzin - LaDue
Forbort - Martinez

I really hope the Kings do not trade for a goalie! This may mean missing the playoffs but they need to stop trading picks and prospects for players that won't be staying past a half year with the team. Hoping Kempe and dowd make strides this year to stick with the team longer than just a few games at a time. STOP putting king on top line!! Don't really care for Nolan in the lineup either (replace with Kempe or Dowd)

I'd like to eventually see lines like this:

Kempe Kopitar Toffoli
Pearson Carter setoguchi
Dowd Shore Brown
Clifford Lewis Purcel
Andreoff/King

Move everyone down a notch when gaborik comes back.
Bottom pair lines can obviously been changed with players moving up or down a line

Doughty Muzzin
Mcnabb Martinez
Forbort Greene
LaDue/Gravel (As much as I want to see BOTH I just don't see them being brought up unless injuries happen)

Keeping defense as is because Sutter won't change that. I'm pretty much done with sutter and him not playing the kids

It shouldn't be too surprising if Doughty and McNabb haven't been as good as last year. Doughty has to play with Muzzin again and McNabb is away from Doughty and with an unfamiliar Martinez. Sutter, in his genius, took what worked last season and led to Doughty finally winning the Norris and mixed it all up to start this season for no good reason. You just know that he's going to go back to last year's pairings at some point, the defense is going to look more comfortable and we're going to be asking, "now why didn't he do that earlier?"

Naturally, Doughty and McNabb haven't been as good as last year. Doughty is being forced to play with Muzzin again and McNabb is away from Doughty and with an unfamiliar Martinez. Sutter, in his genius, took what worked last season and led to Doughty finally winning the Norris and mixed it all up to start this season for no good reason. You just know that he's going to go back to last year's pairings at some point, the defense is going to look more comfortable and we're going to be asking, "now why didn't he do that earlier?"
- Osprey

I don't think that last season was Doughty's best season. He simply won the Norris this time because the other competing defensemen were either on teams that missed the playoffs (Ottawa, Montreal) or missed significant time due to injury (Chicago, Pittsburgh).

I don't think that last season was Doughty's best season. He simply won the Norris this time because the other competing defensemen were either on teams that missed the playoffs (Ottawa, Montreal) or missed significant time due to injury (Chicago, Pittsburgh).
- tkecanuck341

And Muzzin has been really really good early on. But don't bother telling Osprey that. Ever.

And Muzzin has been really really good early on. But don't bother telling Osprey that. Ever.
- Jason_Lewis

I think "really really good" might be a stretch. However, Muzzin has certainly been less bad than most of the other defensemen on the team. He's been fine.

I thought Forbort had a good game against San Jose. He was the defenseman that stood out to me in that game. His play took a big step back against Philly, but I think at least some of that can be attributed to Greene.

Greene has been really really bad. The Kings need to get him out of the lineup immediately. Send him to Ontario for a conditioning stint or something, but his current level of play just isn't going to cut it. Hopefully we'll see Gilbert in the lineup tomorrow in his place.

Martinez has been entirely unnoticeable. That would be fine if his name was Forbort, Greene, or Scuderi, or one of the defensemen that the cliche of "If you don't hear my name, I'm doing my job" can be attributed to. However, if we're going to pair Muzzin and Doughty, than we need Martinez to be more of a two-way defenseman and move the puck more, and he just hasn't been doing that.

McNabb has been the second worse defenseman on the team, next to Greene. There were a few times where I found myself yelling his name at the screen, and not in a good way. He needs to really pick up his play if he's going to be in the top 4.

Doughty is Doughty. At his worst, he's still better than the next best defenseman on the team. He hasn't been playing up to par thus far, but even so, he has still been head and shoulders better than his teammates.

I'm not advocating blowing up the defensive pairs just yet. If we're going to keep the top four of 3, 6, 8, 27, then we're going to continue to see a very top-heavy minutes breakdown, as a pairing of Forbort/Greene or Forbort/Gilbert won't be seeing more than 12-14 heavily protected minutes per game. (For reference, Greene played 11:36 in Friday's game and still had 3 goals scored against while he was on the ice) If we go this route, then Doughty will be playing 28/29 minutes per game again, and that may or may not hurt us come playoffs.

If Sutter does decide to blow up the defensive pairings, then I'd like to see him try something like this:

Forbort/Doughty
Muzzin/Gilbert
McNabb/Martinez

These lines are more defensively trustworthy, and wouldn't be so top heavy in minutes. It would subtract from the offensive potency of the defense during 5v5 play, but I think we'd see the overall GA go down. It also allows Forbort to get some NHL experience next to the most talented defenseman in the game and will hopefully speed up his development.

Anyway, just my two cents.

I think "really really good" might be a stretch. However, Muzzin has certainly been less bad than most of the other defensemen on the team. He's been fine.

I thought Forbort had a good game against San Jose. He was the defenseman that stood out to me in that game. His play took a big step back against Philly, but I think at least some of that can be attributed to Greene.

Greene has been really really bad. The Kings need to get him out of the lineup immediately. Send him to Ontario for a conditioning stint or something, but his current level of play just isn't going to cut it. Hopefully we'll see Gilbert in the lineup tomorrow in his place.

Martinez has been entirely unnoticeable. That would be fine if his name was Forbort, Greene, or Scuderi, or one of the defensemen that the cliche of "If you don't hear my name, I'm doing my job" can be attributed to. However, if we're going to pair Muzzin and Doughty, than we need Martinez to be more of a two-way defenseman and move the puck more, and he just hasn't been doing that.

McNabb has been the second worse defenseman on the team, next to Greene. There were a few times where I found myself yelling his name at the screen, and not in a good way. He needs to really pick up his play if he's going to be in the top 4.

Doughty is Doughty. At his worst, he's still better than the next best defenseman on the team. He hasn't been playing up to par thus far, but even so, he has still been head and shoulders better than his teammates.

I'm not advocating blowing up the defensive pairs just yet. If we're going to keep the top four of 3, 6, 8, 27, then we're going to continue to see a very top-heavy minutes breakdown, as a pairing of Forbort/Greene or Forbort/Gilbert won't be seeing more than 12-14 heavily protected minutes per game. (For reference, Greene played 11:36 in Friday's game and still had 3 goals scored against while he was on the ice) If we go this route, then Doughty will be playing 28/29 minutes per game again, and that may or may not hurt us come playoffs.

If Sutter does decide to blow up the defensive pairings, then I'd like to see him try something like this:

Forbort/Doughty
Muzzin/Gilbert
McNabb/Martinez

These lines are more defensively trustworthy, and wouldn't be so top heavy in minutes. It would subtract from the offensive potency of the defense during 5v5 play, but I think we'd see the overall GA go down. It also allows Forbort to get some NHL experience next to the most talented defenseman in the game and will hopefully speed up his development.

Anyway, just my two cents.
- tkecanuck341

I actually like these pairings. I thought Gilbert played well enough to make the starting lineup.

And Muzzin has been really really good early on. But don't bother telling Osprey that. Ever.
- Jason_Lewis

He's taken two bad penalties, he has no points, he's a -1 and his -9 Corsi and 44% Corsi% are the worst among defensemen after Greene and Forbort. If you think that he's been "really really good," then it's probably you who can't be told anything different.

Martinez has been entirely unnoticeable. That would be fine if his name was Forbort, Greene, or Scuderi, or one of the defensemen that the cliche of "If you don't hear my name, I'm doing my job" can be attributed to. However, if we're going to pair Muzzin and Doughty, than we need Martinez to be more of a two-way defenseman and move the puck more, and he just hasn't been doing that.

McNabb has been the second worse defenseman on the team, next to Greene. There were a few times where I found myself yelling his name at the screen, and not in a good way. He needs to really pick up his play if he's going to be in the top 4.
- tkecanuck341

FWIW, the advanced stats suggest that McNabb and Martinez have been the best defensemen by far. Those two are the only players on the team, forwards included, with double-digit Corsi and the only two defensemen with Corsi% above 50%. McNabb leads the team with a +18 and a 63% and Martinez is second with a +12 and 59%. All of the rest of the defensemen are deep in the negatives and below 50%.

It's true that you shouldn't take advanced stats at their word, but, in this case, the eye test confirms that the Greene-Forbort pair has been a trainwreck and the Doughty-Muzzin pair has been "rough" (to use Jason's word), so it actually follows that the remaining pair be the best. They may be unnoticeable, but given how more went wrong in those two games than went right, being unnoticeable as defensemen isn't bad. They both could probably be better, but nearly everyone else needs to be a lot better, so they're the last defensemen who should be faulted for this start, IMO.

He's taken two bad penalties, he has no points, he's a -1 and his -9 Corsi and 44% Corsi% are the worst among defensemen after Greene and Forbort. If you think that he's been "really really good," then it's probably you who can't be told anything different.



FWIW, the advanced stats suggest that McNabb and Martinez have been the best defensemen. Those two players are the only players on the team, forwards included, with double-digit Corsi and the only two defensemen with Corsi% above 50%. McNabb leads the team with a +18 and a 63% and Martinez is second with a +12 and 59%. All of the rest of the defensemen are deep in the negatives and below 50%.
- Osprey

Corsi over two games is absolutely meaningless and provides little to no insight into who has been better or worse. If those numbers continue over a 20 game spread, then you can draw some conclusions. Until then, it doesn't really mean anything.

Corsi over two games is absolutely meaningless and provides little to no insight into who has been better or worse. If those numbers continue over a 20 game spread, then you can draw some conclusions. Until then, it doesn't really mean anything.
- tkecanuck341

It does mean something. It doesn't mean that it'll keep up over the course of the season, and it doesn't mean that they're the two best defensemen on the team, but it means something in the context of these two games. You don't need to wait 20 games to analyze performance in the two games that have already happened. You certainly didn't wait 20 games when you critiqued every defenseman above.

Put another way, it's like if Andreoff got a goal and an assist two games in a row. You'd say that he was one of the team's best players in those two games. Someone arguing that you can't say that because the sample size is too small would be missing the point, since the argument wasn't that he would keep it up, just that he was good in those two games, which would be rather inarguable.

It does mean something. It doesn't mean that it'll keep up over the course of the season, and it doesn't mean that they're the two best defensemen on the team, but it means something in the context of these two games. You don't need to wait 20 games to draw a conclusion about performance in only the first two games. You certainly didn't wait 20 games when you critiqued every defenseman above.

Put another way, it's like if Andreoff got a goal and an assist two games in a row. You'd say that he was one of the team's best players in those two games. Someone arguing that you can't say that because the sample size is too small would be missing the point, since the argument wasn't that he would keep it up, just that he was good in those two games, which would be rather inarguable.
- Osprey

ITS TWO GAMES!

You obviously don't like muzzin and that's okay. I hate King. But at least he's been bad for several years. At least in my opinion. No im not looking at corsi and all those other stats. King sucks!!

ITS TWO GAMES!
- KINGS67

That's a bit curious when you just posted new line combos that you'd like to see. Can't your argument of "ITS TWO GAMES" be directed even more so at you for wanting to mix up the lines after only two games? If we can't analyze what we see with our eyes and on the stats sheets after two games and react with analysis and how we'd tweak the lineup, what are any of us doing here? Why did Jason write his breakdown of the two games and why are any of us critiquing the play of certain players? Maybe Jason should hold off posting new blogs and the rest of us should hold off discussing the team until a sufficient sample size (or 20 games or such) has been collected.

That's a bit curious when you just posted new line combos that you'd like to see. Can't your argument of "ITS TWO GAMES" be directed even more so at you for wanting to mix up the lines after only two games? If we can't analyze what we see with our eyes and on the stats sheets after two games and react with analysis and how we'd tweak the lineup, what are any of us doing here? Why did Jason write his breakdown of the two games and why are any of us critiquing the play of certain players? Maybe Jason should hold off posting new blogs and the rest of us should hold off discussing the team until a sufficient sample size (or 20 games or such) has been collected.
- Osprey

I've been wanting this lineup. I wanted all these players making the team. I don't care for King, Andreoff, or Nolan in the lineup and I've stated this case for awhile dating back to last year and several years for king.

My lineups weren't made up because of 2 games. These guys should have made the team, but with old man sutter at the helm that obviously didn't happen.

Dowd, kempe, and mersch should have all made team. Seto should have taken a back seat to those guys, although he had a nice camp. Gravel and LaDue looked very good as well.

It does mean something. It doesn't mean that it'll keep up over the course of the season, and it doesn't mean that they're the two best defensemen on the team, but it means something in the context of these two games. You don't need to wait 20 games to analyze performance in the two games that have already happened. You certainly didn't wait 20 games when you critiqued every defenseman above.

Put another way, it's like if Andreoff got a goal and an assist two games in a row. You'd say that he was one of the team's best players in those two games. Someone arguing that you can't say that because the sample size is too small would be missing the point, since the argument wasn't that he would keep it up, just that he was good in those two games, which would be rather inarguable.
- Osprey

The problem with this analogy is that goals and points lead directly to wins, while Corsi does not. Over an extended timeframe, players and teams that lead in corsi generally translate that to points and wins, but as Nick Shore showed us last season, that's not always the case. So yes, if a player has 4 points in two games, he would inarguably be one of the best players in those two games.

However, if Dustin Brown takes a dozen of his low chance, bad angle shots over two games and doesn't score on any of them, but allows two breakaway goals against on only 6 shot attempts in those same two games, he'd have a 67%+ corsi %, but wouldn't necessarily have had the best of games.

If they awarded standings points based on corsi, then Martinez and Muzzin would be the best defensive pair on the team thus far. They don't, so it's pretty much meaningless.

I've been wanting this lineup. I wanted all these players making the team.
- KINGS67

OK, but it doesn't make sense then to criticize someone else for proposing his own lineup.

The problem with this analogy is that goals and points lead directly to wins, while Corsi does not. Over an extended timeframe, players and teams that lead in corsi generally translate that to points and wins, but as Nick Shore showed us last season, that's not always the case. So yes, if a player has 4 points in two games, he would inarguably be one of the best players in those two games.

However, if Dustin Brown takes a dozen of his low chance, bad angle shots over two games and doesn't score on any of them, but allows two breakaway goals against on only 6 shot attempts in those same two games, he'd have a 67%+ corsi %, but wouldn't necessarily have had the best of games.
- tkecanuck341

That's true, and I've made similar arguments, myself, but that's an issue with Corsi, in general. It has nothing to do with sample size. You mentioned two players, Shore and Brown, that are evidence of that.

We're not talking about a sample size here since we're not taking a sample of anything. The "it's only two games" argument is valid only if making projections. It's not relevant when you're only analyzing what's already occurred.

OK, but it doesn't make sense then to criticize someone else for proposing his own lineup.



That's true, and I've made similar arguments, myself, but that's an issue with Corsi, in general. It has nothing to do with sample size. You mentioned two players, Shore and Brown, that are evidence of that.

We're not talking about a sample size here since we're not taking a sample of anything. The "it's only two games" argument is valid only if making projections. It's not relevant when you're only analyzing what's already occurred.
- Osprey

That may be true, and I guess I would say that my argument is that Corsi has no usefulness outside of projections or trends. A player with a low Corsi % in a single game could have had a good game, but it is less likely. A player with a high Corsi % in a single game could have had a bad game, but it is less likely. If you consistently have a high Corsi %, then odds are that you're playing effective hockey. The same goes for low Corsi % and ineffective hockey. But on a single (or double) game scale, it's just not a good stat for measuring if a player was "good" or "bad".

[quote=Osprey]OK, but it doesn't make sense then to criticize someone else for proposing his own lineup.

Your point was specifically made after a two game assesment. That's the difference. You can dislike any players you want. I could careless, but to say hey these guys are terrible after two games is a bit much.

Top 5 pick here we come

Nolan Patrick


Wooooooooo

17 losses to go and my prediction is a reality

That may be true, and I guess I would say that my argument is that Corsi has no usefulness outside of projections or trends. A player with a low Corsi % in a single game could have had a good game, but it is less likely. A player with a high Corsi % in a single game could have had a bad game, but it is less likely. If you consistently have a high Corsi %, then odds are that you're playing effective hockey. The same goes for low Corsi % and ineffective hockey. But on a single (or double) game scale, it's just not a good stat for measuring if a player was "good" or "bad".
- tkecanuck341

The bolded parts conflict with each other. You're suggesting that whether a player had a good or bad game can "likely" be measured by Corsi, then turning around and saying that Corsi isn't a good stat for measuring whether a player had a good or bad game. No stat is perfect for measuring a player's game. "Likely" is as good as you can get. Even goals and assists can be flukey. Brown could have a horrible game, but still end up with a couple of undeserved assists. That's where the eye test is important. I think that we agree on that part.

Your point was specifically made after a two game assesment. That's the difference. You can dislike any players you want. I could careless, but to say hey these guys are terrible after two games is a bit much.
- KINGS67

You're confusing assessing performance in two games with assessing overall ability based on two games. Those are completely different things. Jason thinking that Doughty wasn't very good in the first two games doesn't mean that he thinks that Doughty isn't very good. Similarly, you or I critiquing a particular player (whether it's King or Muzzin) for his play in two games doesn't mean that our opinion of that player was only just formed based on two games. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that it was.