Three L.A. Kings Goals Per Game? Average Does It.

One of our readers, Sydor25, sent me this article as a response to one of our writers, JT Dutch’s, Recent Career Norms article. Enjoy.

Average. That is all it takes. Here are the Los Angeles Kings career average goals per 82 games, including this season:

Gagne 31
Kopitar 29
Richards 25
Penner 24
Brown 22
Williams 20
Stoll 17
Hunter 17
Moreau 13
Richardson 9
Clifford 6
Fraser 6
Lewis 3
Westgarth 1
Doughty 11
Johnson 7
Martinez 7
Mitchell 3
Greene 2
Scuderi 1

Total 254 (3.10 per game)

If everyone was just AVERAGE, that would be 3.10 goals per game over 82 games.

Hunter and Moreau are the only ones that jump out as unrealistic, but Voynov, Loktionov and Parse should have been able to make up some of the 30 goals.  Even if you cut them in half to 15 goals, combined for all 5 players, that still results in 239 goals over 82 games or 2.91 goals per game.

As I write this, the Kings currently sit at 2.26 goals per game, dead last in the entire NHL.  It’s not the roster. Nobody had to have a career year or even a breakout season. It’s not just bad luck.  It’s the culture that Lombardi has built through Terry Murray and AEG needs to wake up if Dean is unwilling to do so.

Do I want to see Dean go?  No, I like what he has tried to build, but he is an extension of his coach and if he keeps the coach, then he is failing his players, ownership and fans.



Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , ,

41 replies

  1. I hear what you are saying…

    It may be necessary to change coaches…

    But this one is on the players. No matter who is the coach, no matter what the system, the players must get the correct spacing, beat the other team to the puck & SCORE.

    That fact is dawning upon Kopitar (who actually had a MONSTER game against MIN), Brown, Doughty, et al. I could see it in their eyes in the post-game interviews.

    I pity the Sharks this weekend.

    • The Kings 5-on-5 scoring rank since Murray was hired:

      30th
      18th
      17th
      30th

      Completely different rosters are arriving at the same place. Not once did they finish in the top half of the NHL. Do we really want another rebuild with Murray at the helm?

      No one is saying that it is all Murray’s fault, but it’s easier to remove the leadership than to re-build the roster again. If Dean didn’t believe in the players, he wouldn’t be signing them to these long term contracts.

  2. Bobby, up until game 26, we could blame Murray. At this point, the onus falls on Lombardi. If these issues still exist by game 50, Tim Leiweke is going to have to start looking in the mirror. The natives are restless. This can’t go on.

    • This was from me and was written a few games ago.

      I agree that Lombardi is now the focal point and has now become the biggest problem with the Kings. Inaction is the easiest way to lose a team. Especially when the head coach is happy with the current results.

  3. Hammonds blog has been taken down on the Kings website!!

  4. Moreau gone???

  5. So Moreau’s gone… Who’s next?

  6. this is the 3rd or 4th article declaring what the scoring SHOULD be. The sad matter of fact is that its not. Any person who follows the NHL knows what these players are capable of producing. We know what to expect already.
    As Kings fans we have the pulse of the team by simply observing them. In a previous article, its been made clear that, DL and AEG, SHOULD, be seeing the same results as we are. However it appears that they are not.
    My question is…. as fans….. how many seasons, with this roster, and this coach…. will we have to watch loosing to 2nd tier teams, before we realize (that under this coaching staff) that we are the 2nd tier team?
    If you sit at the table and you can’t spot the sucker… chances are, IT’S YOU!

  7. … This article is based completely on a terrible post made by a “RobSD” that was in the Anaheim post-game thread; one of the worst posts I’ve ever read, incidentally. Just how the hell many aliases do you have here, Sydor? Or are you plagiarizing someone else’s shitty work?

    I’m sad this is even designated as a response to me. Remind me not to write any more articles like my last one if I’m going to get responses like this. Christ.

    It’s not the roster. Nobody had to have a career year or even a breakout season. It’s not just bad luck. It’s the culture that Lombardi has built through Terry Murray and AEG needs to wake up if Dean is unwilling to do so.

    Do I want to see Dean go? No, I like what he has tried to build

    … Well, which is it??? Do you not like the culture he’s built, or do you like it? You know what, scratch that. I couldn’t care less. Dislike it and like it simultaneously! Have a great time! Make up new aliases while you’re at it.

    • If you had any reading comprehension skills you would know that RobSD copied my post from Hammond’s blog, as he clearly stated.

      You can’t even understand that Bobby could want Murray to be fired and can still hope that Murray turns the Kings around and leads them to a Stanley Cup championship. Last time I checked, Bobby doesn’t have the ability to fire Murray.
      I haven’t seen anyone show how Murray’s system has been successful since the lockout. How many years of failure do we need before you acknowledge that it doesn’t work and it’s not just the players?

      “Well, which is it??? Do you not like the culture he’s built, or do you like it? You know what, scratch that. I couldn’t care less. Dislike it and like it simultaneously! Have a great time! Make up new aliases while you’re at it.”

      Key word that you seemed to miss is the “through Terry Murray”, if Lombardi is married to Murray, then they both need to go. I would prefer that Dean fire Murray because I like the roster that Dean has built and I would expect a new coach to get the Kings above 30th in the NHL on offense with this same roster. I don’t want another re-build with Murray at the helm and I think AEG would fire both if that is what Dean wants to do. Doing nothing would be the worst solution.

      I don’t understand that when you don’t have a counter argument, you just lament and act like you are the smartest person on the planet and no one else sees what you can see.

      You could ask 10 random people, including Bob and Jim, who watched the Kings-Wild game and get 9 people to say that the Kings kept it to the outside and didn’t generate enough scoring chances and you would say the complete opposite. You would claim that the Kings dominted the game and Quick lost the game for the Kings. You would probably talk about some lucky bounces the Kings didn’t get that the Wild got. You would say if the Kings played the same way every night they would be a top offense and lead the Pacific division. How close did I get? Did you see a different game than everyone else? You would forget that the score was 3-0 entering the 3rd period and the Wild just sat back knowing that they would still win.

      At least you should be happy that Moreau is gone. Lombardi got rid of one of Murray’s pets and kept Loktionov and Voynov on the roster. Drewiske probably goes next when Richards comes off IR.

      • If you had any reading comprehension skills you would know that RobSD copied my post from Hammond’s blog, as he clearly stated.

        … Actually what he said was “This is a post from the Insider that cannot sum it up any better….”. There was no mention of “Sydor” anywhere in his post. So yeah, tell me again about my reading comprehension. If one doesn’t go to the insider (like me), how is that person gonna know who even wrote the post?

        You can’t even understand that Bobby could want Murray to be fired and can still hope that Murray turns the Kings around and leads them to a Stanley Cup championship.

        … Oh, I know. He wants him gone but he wants him to stay, too. Makes perfect sense. How silly of me! Maybe he meant Murray should stay on as a volunteer coach after he’s fired. You know, kinda stop by in his spare time and offer a few pointers. That way, he could help turn things around AND be fired, too.

        When the Kings dropped to last in the league in scoring, Bobby said Murray’s mission was accomplished. What’s there to turn around? He’s reached the pinnacle, right? I mean, he wants the Kings to lose, right?

        You would claim that the Kings dominted the game and Quick lost the game for the Kings.

        … Of course, I actually DID say that, because that’s what happened.

        You would forget that the score was 3-0 entering the 3rd period and the Wild just sat back knowing that they would still win.

        … They out-chanced the Wild in the first two periods as well. It got more lopsided in the third. I guess the Wild knew they were going to win when they took the ice. I’m glad that almighty Minnesota let the Kings have more scoring chances in the game. It’s not like the Kings earned them, or anything.

        At least you should be happy that Moreau is gone.

        … I am! Notice how I said that and not “wow bummer I wish he could have stayed on the team and turned things around.” I said he didn’t belong in the NHL and I’m glad the Kings finally realized that as well.

        • “You would claim that the Kings dominted the game and Quick lost the game for the Kings.”
          … Of course, I actually DID say that, because that’s what happened.

          –I have to comment on this…LA had moments but did not dominate. Most of their shots were way outside…and weak. They only got off a single one-timer and backed away from more shots that I could count.

        • “… Oh, I know. He wants him gone but he wants him to stay, too. Makes perfect sense.”

          Come on JT, you’re fuckin’ with us now. You can’t honestly think that believing someone should get fired based on current performance is mutually exclusive to hoping that same guy can do better. That’s the heart of myopic thinking, seeing things as mutually exclusive purely because they aren’t analogous, which is what you are doing on this point.

          “… Of course, I actually DID say that, because that’s what happened.”

          Did you listen to the radio or watch on TV? No one from any broadcasting team thought the Kings played well, the same guys who defend the Kings to their last breath were out of excuses for that game. My friend sits behind Jim Fox, said he saw Fox bury his face in his hands in exasperation on several occasions as a result of the Kings’ play that game. The shot total of that game meant absolutely nothing. The Kings were able to squeeze out a couple of goals ONLY once Minnesota let off the gas. The goals to start the first and second period were as much as result of the Kings coming out of the dressing room looking like fucking zombies as they were about Quick letting in a softie.

          The Kings looked absolutely listless for the first 5 minutes of each period, and then managed to gain some confidence and throw some pucks at the net.

          Why are you completely ignoring 1/4 of each of the first two periods? It’s all well and good when the team plays well, but it means much less to play well after you’ve played like dog shit immediately before than it does to come out of the gate and play well. Exhibit A – Minnesota. They started off well and then didn’t need to play as well because they got AHEAD of the game. The Kings put themselves behind the 8 ball right away in two periods, and had to play catch-up. Well catch-up only works against shitty teams or teams who get too cocky, neither of which apply to Minnesota.

          And the key here is THE TEAM put themselves behind the 8-ball. Not Quick. THE TEAM. Quick is included in that to be sure, but to single him out like the team played well in front of him when he gave up those goals is flat out wrong.

        • Let me help with an analogy JT. You are unnecessarily an ass most of the time but I wish you were not and I hope you won’t be an ass in the future. Now, tell me that is crap and I think you are an ass all the time and I hope you never change.

          • … Honestly, I expected more from you, being a man of your intelligence. And the analogy isn’t even correct.

            Call me an ass all you like. At least I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

          • Meaning what you say and hoping for positive change are not mutually exclusive. I can dislike what you do and still wish that you would do better. I can believe Murray is not the right coach and still hope he becomes one. I am disappointed you cannot see this. I think you are being stubborn, which is one of your positive (and coincidentally negative) attributes. I am sure I am not the first person to tell you that.

        • JT, you think the Kings dominated the game…the game, not the third period at which time the Wild collapsed their defense and were just trying to preserve the lead. That is incredible. I have no words.

        • First period: Wild had 7 of 12 shots in the scoring zone.
          Kings had 5 of 13 shots in the scoring zone. The Kings had 2 shots from center ice and three along he blue line. That’s domination?

          Second period: 5 of 7 shots by the Wild in the scoring zone. That’s 12 of 19 in the scoring zone.
          Kings had 7 of 13 shots in the scoring zone. 12 of 26 for two periods. That’s still domination to you?

          Third period: 2 of 5 shots by the Wild in the scoring zone. That’s 14 of 24 for the game (58.3%)
          Kings had 8 of 18 from the scoring zone. That’s 20 for 44 in the game. (45.4%)

          Seems more even than domination by the Kings. And the Kings got their goals after the Wild packed it in during the third.

          Can the Kings start a game like they played the third? Can they “dominate” when the game is still up for grabs?

          • … This is all predicated on just the shots on goal. And, that’s fine. It WAS pretty even in the first two periods, I suppose.

            But if you look at shots directed at the net and time spent in the offensive zone – it’s a mismatch. The Kings directed 98 shots at the Minnesota net. The Wild directed 44 at the Kings’ net. That’s domination. If the Kings do that, they’re going to win games more often than not.

            In the last meeting between the Kings and the Wild, the Kings directed 61 shots at Minnesota’s net. The Wild directed 42 shots at the Kings’ net. The Kings won, 5-2.

            I find it pretty funny that the only reason the Kings had chances and goals in the game is because Minnesota let them. That’s so nice of the Wild, pitying us like that. Who says it’s all cutthroat in the NHL?

            And to respond in some other areas – honestly, I don’t care about the circumstances under which the soft goals were given up. They shouldn’t have been given up. Period. If Jonathan Quick is the bestest goalie in the universe and is apparently stealing all or most of the Kings wins, he needs to stop those shots. he’s had a poor couple games in a row, and if he’s going to get all of the accolades when he’s on his game, he needs to take the heat when he’s not.

          • And he should take some heat for the last two games. No one is denying that Quick was off his game.

            The argument is you say we win those games if Quick was better and I say we still lose them.

          • Goaltending is a funny position. Speaking from experience, it’s mostly between the ears. It’s difficult to stay in the zone for long stretches of time. That is why rest and regrouping helps. That is why Murray not playing Bernier more hurts Quick in more ways than just wearing him out – it also hurts Bernier because he cannot develop a rhythm and fucks up the goaltending in general because one does not “push” the other – I know goalies look like good friends out there, stick tapping each other and exchanging smiles but it is an intensely competitive position – the words “that is my net” is a literal one.

          • How many shots were directed from the scoring zone? Just because the Kings threw more shots from the edge and blue line doesn’t mean they had a chance of going in.

            I don’t think anyone is saying that Quick had a good game, he was clearly below average, but wouldn’t it be nice if the team could come back and score some goals?

            I don’t think anyone said that the Wild just felt like giving the Kings their chances, but they clearly went into a shell in the third period since it was 3-0.

            I think this is a hard game to truly critique because of the quick goal against, we know that the Kings don’t play well from behind. Murray wants his team to sit back and take advantage of mistakes, but as soon as it becomes 1-0 against, the other team doesn’t have to take as many chances and the Kings have to generate their own chances and they struggle with that, for whatever reason you want to pick. It’s a fact that they struggle to score goals.

            I’m still waiting for the evidence that Murray’s offensive system works post lockout.

          • Another point… The Blackhawks won a fucking cup with less than stellar goaltending. Why does Quick need to be perfect or next to it for us to win? Could be…….. Because we suck?

          • Meh. I thought…what the hell was his name…Niemi played pretty well. He made the stops he had to. He wasn’t Tim Thomas out there but how many times do you see that?

    • Here goes jt reading only what he wants to read out of everything, taking little bits and pieces and fabricating stuff.

      I have a question jt, why is it before players get here they perform (not talking the shitty players, but good players) but once they get here they go down in production?

      Better yet, how many players have done better since becoming a king versus doing better once leaving the team? What has terry murray done to improve the offense?

      I know you won’t answer these questions because there is no fucking answer, and anything you have to say will be fluff.

      How much does kings management pay you to spew bullshit? Id like that job too, its easy.

      • I have a question jt, why is it before players get here they perform (not talking the shitty players, but good players) but once they get here they go down in production?

        … How did Frolov do after he left the Kings? How did O’Sullivan do after he left the Kings?

        • Frolov did fine until he got hurt.

          O’Sullivan was damaged beyond repair and is lucky have gotten one good season under him before he mentally melted down.

          You’re point?

          • Frolov did fine until he got hurt.

            … He wasn’t doing as well as he did in L.A., even after accounting for the fact that he didn’t play as much.

            O’Sullivan was damaged beyond repair and is lucky have gotten one good season under him before he mentally melted down.

            … He actually had two good seasons with the Kings, and again – he was not as good after he left them.

            My point’s pretty basic, actually – you can’t have it both ways.

          • Well Fir Frolov he was already trending downward when he left, something you ad I both attribute to his getting jerk around here.

            As for O’Sullivan, one or two, whatever. He was a head And unfortunately never recovered from being traded.

            No one wants to have it both ways. There will always be exceptions to general rules and both your exceptions carry heavy caveats and neither breaks the general rule.

          • Did you just give credit to Murray for O’Sullivans season playing for Crawford?

            He had 22 in 82 games for Crawford and 14 in 62 games for Murray. Similar numbers, but still fewer under Murray. Around 15% less per game.

          • Frolov was badly mishandled by Murray. Even Lombardi, if he was being honest, would admit that today…at least I hope he would. I miss Frolov. We could use him right now.

          • Players often look better because they were picked up for the fit.

            Only Moulson has been consistent after leaving the King.

            Frolov sucked in NY. A real leather boy. He got big 1st line minutes with Gaborik and did nothing.

            When Gaborik went down Frolov was showcased as his replacement and sucked so badly that the only scoring he did was at Club Bounce in Chelsey…where sucking is an asset.

            I would have liked to see him stay but all Murray’s system offered was a slow, agonizing descent.

  8. Wit a minute guys! Dean did something! He got rid of Moreau! Can’t you see?! All of our problems are now over, in one little move! Now Murray has to play Lewis, and or Richardson! Now he has to put someone with a bit of talent on the powerplay (probably Hunter! He scored that goal last night!)!! Yay! Thanks Dean, you are a genius!

  9. It’s getting a bit frosty in here.
    Well Sydor, just to bring in a bit of cheer, I did very much enjoy your line “I would prefer that Dean fire Murray because I like the roster that Dean has built and I would expect a new coach to get the Kings above 30th in the NHL on offense with this same roster.” That’s good. Seriously. I was thinking, wow what if there were more than 30 teams in the nhl. Wonder if they could go further south.

    Anyway, the whole thing is just becoming plain sad is all.

    Also, everyone has theories. We all do. But at the end of the day, I honestly feel as though there are Several issues holding back the team. Not just the coaching. And while I’m not savvy enough to state exactly what they are, and I’m sure a coaching change would help, I’m still not convinced that that in and of itself will completely turn the ship around as much as it needs to be turned around.

    I do however still know as most everyone does, that the team has some very strong pieces in place. Thankfully.

  10. They’re ripping us on ESPN now. Maybe that will help.

    http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/7334721/los-angeles-kings-shrinking-back-expectations

    Article almost exclusively lays into the player though, with only a brief mention of coach change from fan’s perspective at the end.

    • They’re ripping us on ESPN now. Maybe that will help.

      … It might, if ESPN knew or cared about hockey at all.

      • It doesn’t matter whether ESPN knows what Hockey is in the first place. National media pressure does amount to something and you damn well better believe the Kings take notice. They gather news stories about themselves every single day and make packets for their staff to digest. I can guarantee you that they are aware of that article.

        Once those start adding up to more and more articles, the people in power start to get annoyed that they are being presented in a bad light by important media, not critically acclaimed media, important, which means widely distributed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,834 other followers

%d bloggers like this: