The only two pairings all season that are above +2 G+/- and 52.5 CF%--you could say the only two good pairings--are Doughty-Muzzin and Doughty-Forbort. There's a common factor there and it's proven by how both Muzzin and Forbort see their stats drop off considerably when paired with anyone else.
- Osprey

I don't agree with your arbitrary definition of a "good pairing". The Kings aren't a good Corsi team this year, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Their scoring is up significantly from this point last season, and their goals against is down, despite significantly increased scoring rates around the league. The only things that this shows is that they more selective about the shots that they take, which has resulted in the highest 5v5 shooting percentage (8.1%) by a significant margin since Darryl Sutter took over (6.8% aggregated from 2011-12 to 2016-17), and that the Kings can still do well by relying more on Quick than they have in the past.

Muzzin's 5v5 CF% is still positive (51.25%), even when the team's overall CF% is negative (49.76%). Of course Muzzin is better when he plays with Doughty. Everyone is better when they play with Doughty, and everyone is significantly worse when they play without him. However, Doughty is significantly better when he plays with Muzzin vs anyone else (56.12% with, 51.64% without). Doughty is only 53.71% when he plays with Forbort, the only other defenseman that he has spent significant 5v5 time with. In other words, not only does Doughty make Muzzin better, but Muzzin also makes Doughty better.

While the Kings acclimate to this new "still-defensively-responsible-but-offensively-potent" system, they're going to give up a lot of shots and chances against. The team's Corsi has suffered accordingly. However, Muzzin is still net positive, and relatively better than the team average.

The 52.5 CF% is an arbitrary metric that you cherry picked to support your perpetual narrative that Muzzin sucks.

Additionally, Muzzin is an even or better player when playing with every other defenseman this season except Folin and Gravel:

Paired w/ Doughty: +9
Paired w/ Fantenberg: +5 (0 goals against)
Paired w/ Martinez: +3
Paired w/ Forbort: Even
Paired w/ MacDermid: Even
Paired w/ Gravel: -1
Paired w/ Folin: -4

So yes, while being paired with Doughty certainly helped Muzzin's +/-, so did being paired with Martinez and Fantenberg.

I don't agree with your arbitrary definition of a "good pairing".
- tkecanuck341

I agree. I shouldn't have added that part, since it made it sound as though CF% necessarily indicates a good pairing, which I certainly don't believe.

Muzzin's 5v5 CF% is still positive (51.25%), even when the team's overall CF% is negative (49.76%). Of course Muzzin is better when he plays with Doughty. Everyone is better when they play with Doughty, and everyone is significantly worse when they play without him. However, Doughty is significantly better when he plays with Muzzin vs anyone else (56.12% with, 51.64% without). Doughty is only 53.71% when he plays with Forbort, the only other defenseman that he has spent significant 5v5 time with. In other words, not only does Doughty make Muzzin better, but Muzzin also makes Doughty better.

While the Kings acclimate to this new "still-defensively-responsible-but-offensively-potent" system, they're going to give up a lot of shots and chances against. The team's Corsi has suffered accordingly. However, Muzzin is still net positive, and relatively better than the team average.
- tkecanuck341

It's not the least bit surprising that Muzzin has positive Corsi. Even when he was awful last year and was on the ice for 18 more even strength goals against than for, he had one of the better CF% on team, with a 55.64%. His train wreck pairing with Martinez even had a better CF% than the Doughty-Forbort pairing. Muzzin will always be a net positive Corsi player no matter how poorly he plays, because he's an offensive defenseman in a defensively responsible system. Because of that, it's also no surprise that Doughty has a better CF% when paired with him, since he's able to create a lot more offense with him than the defensive Forbort.

The 52.5 CF% is an arbitrary metric that you cherry picked to support your perpetual narrative that Muzzin sucks.
- tkecanuck341

Additionally, Muzzin is an even or better player when playing with every other defenseman this season except Folin and Gravel:
- tkecanuck341

Drawing the line at Folin and Gravel is an arbitrary metric that you cherry picked to support your perpetual narrative that Muzzin is a Norris-caliber, elite defenseman. See? Two can play the strawman game

I agree. I shouldn't have added that part, since it made it sound as though CF% necessarily indicates a good pairing, which I certainly don't believe.

It's not the least bit surprising that Muzzin has positive Corsi. Even when he was awful last year and was on the ice for 18 more even strength goals against than for, he had one of the better CF% on team, with a 55.64%. His train wreck pairing with Martinez even had a better CF% than the Doughty-Forbort pairing. Muzzin will always be a net positive Corsi player no matter how poorly he plays, because he's an offensive defenseman in a defensively responsible system. Because of that, it's also no surprise that Doughty has a better CF% when paired with him, since he's able to create a lot more offense with him than the defensive Forbort.

Drawing the line at Folin and Gravel is an arbitrary metric that you cherry picked to support your perpetual narrative that Muzzin is a Norris-caliber, elite defenseman. See? Two can play the strawman game
- Osprey

I'm pretty sure I have never argued that Muzzin is or was a Norris-calibre defensemen. In fact, I've consistently said that he shouldn't even be considered a top-pairing defenseman, and that if the Kings use him as such, then they're going to have problems. However, I do believe that he's one of the better second-pairing defensemen in the league, and if they use him as such, then they're in good shape.

Regarding drawing the line at Folin and Gravel... I didn't do that, math did. It is a statistical fact to say that Muzzin is an "even or better" player while playing with everyone except Folin and Gravel. What I didn't do is state that those numbers mean that he has been "good" or "bad", or draw any conclusions based on those numbers, which is what you do consistently.

If it were up to me, we'd remove Corsi from any discussion of whether a player is "good" or "bad". It is a useful tool to help evaluate a player's effectiveness at shot generation and shot suppression, but too many armchair analysts use it to try and Moneyball the sport. This isn't baseball, it doesn't work that way.

I'm pretty sure I have never argued that Muzzin is or was a Norris-calibre defensemen.
- tkecanuck341

Of course you haven't. That was the point. That would be a strawman, just as saying that I've argued that Muzzin sucks is.

What I didn't do is state that those numbers mean that he has been "good" or "bad", or draw any conclusions based on those numbers, which is what you do consistently.
- tkecanuck341

That's the pot calling the kettle black, considering that, for one, you drew the conclusion above that Muzzin makes Doughty "better" than Forbort does because of CF%.

If it were up to me, we'd remove Corsi from any discussion of whether a player is "good" or "bad". It is a useful tool to help evaluate a player's effectiveness at shot generation and shot suppression, but too many armchair analysts use it to try and Moneyball the sport. This isn't baseball, it doesn't work that way.
- tkecanuck341

We can agree there.

That's the pot calling the kettle black, considering that, for one, you drew the conclusion above that Muzzin makes Doughty "better" than Forbort does because of CF%..
- Osprey

Since your initial argument used a 52.5% 5v5 CF% metric to determine what a "good" defensive pairing was, I was using your own metric to assess the defensive pairs. It's also the only reason I brought up +/- in the first place, since you brought up Muzzin's -21 rating from last season a few months ago to argue that it made Muzzin "bad." Normally I would never use either of those stats to gauge the overall effectiveness of a player.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not strawmanning by stating that you consistently argue that Muzzin is terrible. You do....a lot.

Since your initial argument used a 52.5% 5v5 CF% metric to determine what a "good" defensive pairing was, I was using your own metric to assess the defensive pairs. It's also the only reason I brought up +/- in the first place, since you brought up Muzzin's -21 rating from last season a few months ago to argue that it made Muzzin "bad." Normally I would never use either of those stats to gauge the overall effectiveness of a player.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not strawmanning by stating that you consistently argue that Muzzin is terrible. You do....a lot.
- tkecanuck341

No, you perceive me to be doing that a lot, which is a fault of your perception. It's easier to believe that I'm wrong and you're right if you convince yourself that my position is as extreme as that.

I've never said that Muzzin is terrible or bad. I've argued that his defense is mediocre or not nearly as good as people think. It's strawmanning to spin that into "Muzzin is terrible."

No, you perceive me to be doing that a lot, which is a fault of your perception. You do that because it's easier to believe that I'm wrong and you're right if you convince yourself that my position is as extreme as that. Going and putting words into my mouth and arguing against that is what strawmanning is.
- Osprey

Look, if you're going to sit here and argue that you haven't been crapping on Muzzin since you joined this site in 2015, then I can't take anything you say seriously anymore. I can't think of a single positive thing that you have said about Muzzin, even when he's playing relatively well, but I'd have to take my socks off to count the negative things you've said about him just this season.

Look, if you're going to sit here and argue that you haven't been crapping on Muzzin since you joined this site in 2015, then I can't take anything you say seriously anymore. I can't think of a single positive thing that you have said about Muzzin, even when he's playing relatively well, but I'd have to take my socks off to count the negative things you've said about him just this season.
- tkecanuck341

I think that it suggests that you don't even want to take what I say seriously when you insist on substituting it for something else that can't be taken seriously. I didn't say that I "haven't been crapping on [him]" since I joined; I said that I haven't argued that he's "terrible." I'm not sure how you got one from the other. I've been "crapping" on the latest Star Wars film and the latest Star Trek series, but that doesn't mean that I've ever argued or thought that either was "terrible."

Don't assume that rarely giving positives means that there are none that could be given. Noting positives to balance out the negatives isn't the only way to be fair. You can also be mostly critical, but still fair. I'm very conscientious about avoiding using hyperbole in my criticism, like calling a player "terrible," which is why I don't appreciate it when people unfairly accuse me of it.

I was bored at work, so I decided to go through Jason Lewis's old blog comments and put together a "greatest hits" of the shade you have thrown at Muzzin over the past couple seasons. Enjoy!

I'm sure that it wasn't deliberate. Muzzin just happens to be a dumb, careless player, and such players do things like this now and again. Brown is another one. These kinds of things happen when you rush into things without thinking, something that Muzzin excels at, whether it's going for the big hit or the pinch at the wrong time. He didn't deserve the match penalty, but he still has no one to blame but himself for putting the officials in the position of determining that.
- Osprey

I greatly disagree that there's any "balance" in a Muzzin-McBain pairing. They're practically the same player, except that one is a little more physical. Everything that you wrote about McBain--that he's an "excellent puck mover," but that "his aggression, which is his best asset offensively, can also be his worst asset defensively"--applies equally (if not even more so) to Muzzin. Those two should not be paired together because each relies on his partner (as well as his centerman and goalie) to bail him out.
- Osprey

After Doughty, there's a big drop-off to a bunch of interchangeable support players. The reason that they get away with it (besides Doughty being a workhorse) is the system. It makes nearly everyone look a lot better at defense than they really are or would look in most other systems.
- Osprey

Particularly, Corey Perry ought to send Jake Muzzin a gift basket for making all three of his hat trick goals possible (twice because forwards took penalties covering for him and then once for chasing the puck) and practically handing his team the division. Much is made of not wanting Doughty playing 28-32 minutes, but there's a problem when you have Muzzin playing 25 minutes, himself, considering how much of a defensive liability he is, as tonight once again proved. Unfortunately, it's likely something that won't be solved tomorrow, no matter who Lombardi acquires (if anyone).
- Osprey

This is why reckless, often irresponsible defensemen can find success in the Kings' system. Their recklessness is used positively and largely mitigated by the responsible centers covering for them. This is why defensemen like Muzzin, Martinez, McBain and even McNabb look like better players in the Kings' system than they would in most other systems. They're actually encouraged to use their aggression without worrying much about the consequences, and the style of play that would likely hurt their team more often than not in other systems ends up helping more often than not in this system. It's awfully maddening for someone like me who appreciates intelligent, responsible defense and hates seeing people being rewarded for being reckless, but it works for the Kings.
- Osprey

The defense is Doughty and the system. Those are what carried the team to a good record last season, despite all of the issues with the caliber and stability of the 2-7 spots, and they may have to do it again.
- Osprey

and my personal favorite:

Muzzin is such a dumb player. No player has done more to harm the team this season than him. It's not even close. He's been culpable on one or two goals in nearly every game so far. In past years, I'd be upset, but I can only laugh now. If they're going to be mediocre, they may as well just be bad and get a higher draft pick, and Muzzin is doing the most to make that happen.
- Osprey

So Muzzin is a dumb, reckless, careless, irresponsible, defensive liability, who is propped up by Doughty and the Kings defense-first system and replaceable by just about anyone else. My apologies for saying that you called him "terrible."

Jason accurately summed up how it feels to debate with you about him.

90% of your comments are about how statistical analysis is misleading and that Muzzin is a dumb/bad hockey player. I am not going to argue with someone who sets an agenda each time like that regardless of previous data/arguments proving the contrary.
- Jason Lewis

If you said the occasional positive thing about Muzzin when he does play relatively well, then I don't think everyone would be so quick to jump on you when you do criticize him. However, you quite literally have never authored a single post that was net positive about Muzzin (I checked). The cumulative effect of your trending negativity is the inference that you think he is terrible. Anyone who ever calls you out on it is immediately accused of the strawman fallacy, because you didn't say that specific negative thing about him THIS TIME. Honestly, it's exhausting.

I appreciate that you went to the effort to prove my point that I've never said that and to admit that your accusation was only an inference. Seriously, believe me, I know that that's the easy thing to infer from my posts, but that doesn't mean that it's accurate.

Anyone who ever calls you out on it is immediately accused of the strawman fallacy, because you didn't say that specific negative thing about him THIS TIME. Honestly, it's exhausting.
- tkecanuck341

That's a pretty large generalization to make when you just proved that I've not said that specific negative thing this time or any other time. If getting corrected when you exaggerate is exhausting, why exaggerate? As you proved, I've called Muzzin a dumb player, a reckless one, one propped up by Doughty and the system and so on. If you had accused me of saying those things, I would've gladly owned up to them, but I don't have to accept your characterization when it's an exaggeration and a serious overall judgment that I've never made. The fact that I take issue with it and you're eager to pin it on me should tell you that it's not accurate.

BTW, this seems like a pretty dumb thing to have an argument over, doesn't it? We're not arguing about the team or the league. We're not even really arguing over Muzzin. We're arguing over wording and debate tactics. That's what's truly exhausting, wouldn't you agree?

As much as I love good debates, I don't like when they get too contentious or run too long, so, in the interest of closure, I'll offer this: I admire and respect your posts, tkecanuck. They're intelligent, well researched and level headed. It's a pleasure to read them. I was thinking about this the other day, so it's not just a platitude. I think that we're actually a lot alike--we like to argue and support and our arguments--which potentially makes our debates both interesting and frustrating. Just understand that, even when pointing out perceived strawmen, that it's not personal or meant to be disparaging. I don't argue with people that I don't respect, so it's a compliment that I wasted half of today responding to you. Cheers.

Sorry, Mike, but you can put away the popcorn...

BTW, this seems like a pretty dumb thing to have an argument over, doesn't it? We're not arguing about the team or the league. We're not even really arguing over Muzzin. We're arguing over wording and debate tactics. That's what's truly exhausting, wouldn't you agree?

As much as I love a good debate, I don't like when they get too contentious or run too long, so, in the interests of closure, I'll offer this: I admire and respect you and your posts, tkecanuck. They're intelligent, well researched and level headed. It's a pleasure to read them. I was thinking about this the other day, so it's not just a platitude. I think that we're actually a lot alike, which makes our debates both very interesting and very frustrating. Just know that my disagreements with you (especially things like accusing you of strawmen) are not intended to be personal or demeaning. I still respect you and your opinions and hope that you can continue to do the same in return (and take me seriously), even if we may disagree on some... scratch that... many things. Cheers.

Sorry, Mike, but you can put away the popcorn...
- Osprey

Fair enough.

One of the side effects of reading through the entirety of blog comments is getting to re-read your comments on a variety of topics. A lot of them are insightful, well-researched, and often contrary to popular opinion, which I certainly can respect. There were several times where that contrary position turned out to be correct, and you could have had many "I told you so" moments.

There are some things that you can be pedantic and obtuse about, and it irks me to no end, but regardless of how much we go back and forth, I admire the fact that you always attack the argument and not the arguer, which is certainly rare on sites like these. I have always said that once your opponent starts attacking the person instead of the idea, then you have won the argument. The fact that you don't is probably why our discussions go on for so long.

So anyway, here's towards many more frustrating and irksome discussions about the Kings in the future.