Sheng Peng: Knights Pummel Kings 4-2; Schmidt Outplays Doughty; Thoughts on LA From the get-go, Golden Knights take it to the Kings + Nate Schmidt was the best defenseman on the ice last night + Is LA in trouble?

Kuemper has surprised me this season. 30 shots against him after Quick was pulled and he showed no signs of fatigue even though he started and shut out Florida the previous game.

On the other hand I'm not sure what was going on with Quick last night. 2 of the goals should have been a save and the one bone head play behind the net cost the team the win. Maybe staying overnight in Vegas isn't the best idea for any team lol.

Sheng Peng you're still the man even if you are writing for my 2nd favorite NHL team.

Schmidt outplays Doughty? Ummmm...no. Your treason is getting more ludicrous by the day.

Kuemper has surprised me this season.

Sheng Peng you're still the man even if you are writing for my 2nd favorite NHL team.
- kingsfan626

Thanks!

And yea, I advocated signed a more veteran guy than Kuemper, but he's certainly worked out. You can say maybe LA doesn't win without him against Florida, high praise for a backup.

Sorry Sheng, normally I like your stuff, but I disagree with most of your article.

Firstly, all 3 of Vegas's goals were bad goals. Even the 2nd one, which was sparked by a pretty nasty turnover and some poor defensive coverage, is a relatively easy save by Quick on most nights. If Quick wasn't having an off night, or if Kuemper had started this game, it would have ended 2-0 in favor of LA.

Vegas did not "soundly outplay" the Kings. While they may have had more even strength scoring chances than the Kings, the Kings' best scoring chances were much better than Vegas's best. The fact that Schmidt even had to make the "save of the game" goes to show how close the Kings came to tying it up. That wasn't the only near miss they had either.

Vegas got lucky that they encountered Quick on an off night. Being out-shot and out-chanced has been a theme for the Kings so far this season, even in their victories. Poor goaltending lost this game for the Kings, not the superior play of the Golden Knights.

Sorry Sheng, normally I like your stuff, but I disagree with most of your article.

Firstly, all 3 of Vegas's goals were bad goals. Even the 2nd one, which was sparked by a pretty nasty turnover and some poor defensive coverage, is a relatively easy save by Quick on most nights. If Quick wasn't having an off night, or if Kuemper had started this game, it would have ended 2-0 in favor of LA.

Vegas did not "soundly outplay" the Kings. While they may have had more even strength scoring chances than the Kings, the Kings' best scoring chances were much better than Vegas's best. The fact that Schmidt even had to make the "save of the game" goes to show how close the Kings came to tying it up. That wasn't the only near miss they had either.
- tkecanuck341

No need to apologize! Thanks for reading.

Of course, Quick's mistakes put LA behind the eightball. But usually, a team that's down like that will respond with a barrage of chances; they should outchance the team ahead. They're the ones "chasing" the game. However, LA did not because Vegas was quicker on the puck for 60 minutes.

By my final count, I had VGK 17-9 ES chances. That's a wide disparity. In terms of chance quality, VGK matched LAK in terms of the scrum, back-to-back chances. Thinking of the Bellemare fourth line chances that I captured, but also a couple by Leipsic in the 1st and Marchessault with an eternity in the slot late in the 3rd. Also, NHL.com noted Schmidt hit the post on his 3rd period end-to-end rush.

Not to say that LA didn't have very dangerous chances, the best I might say for them was that they matched VGK in that department, if you're being kind. But I disagree, and so does Natural Stat Trick, which calculates chances from NHL data; they had a 15-5 VGK 5v5 high-danger edge.

If LA had won 2-0 with all these underlying stats staying the same (taking out Quick's two clear mistakes and a pretty good shot by Eakin that I'd expect a goalie to stop, though by no means a bad goal), I still would have said that the Kings got soundly outplayed, they were just bailed out by Quick. LA's breakout had a ton of issues throughout.

No need to apologize! Thanks for reading.

Of course, Quick's mistakes put LA behind the eightball. But usually, a team that's down like that will respond with a barrage of chances; they should outchance the team ahead. They're the ones "chasing" the game. However, LA did not because Vegas was quicker on the puck for 60 minutes.

By my final count, I had VGK 17-9 ES chances. That's a wide disparity. In terms of chance quality, VGK matched LAK in terms of the scrum, back-to-back chances. Thinking of the Bellemare fourth line chances that I captured, but also a couple by Leipsic in the 1st and Marchessault with an eternity in the slot late in the 3rd. Also, NHL.com noted Schmidt hit the post on his 3rd period end-to-end rush.

Not to say that LA didn't have very dangerous chances, the best I might say for them was that they matched VGK in that department, if you're being kind. But I disagree, and so does Natural Stat Trick, which calculates chances from NHL data; they had a 15-5 VGK 5v5 high-danger edge.

If LA had won 2-0 with all these underlying stats staying the same (taking out Quick's two clear mistakes and a pretty good shot by Eakin that I'd expect a goalie to stop, though by no means a bad goal), I still would have said that the Kings got soundly outplayed, they were just bailed out by Quick. LA's breakout had a ton of issues throughout.
- Sheng.Peng

My big problem with statistics sites like that is that they only have 3 categories of scoring chances. There is a huge disparity in the actual stoppability of "high-danger" chances. All of Vegas's "high-danger" scoring chances were obviously stoppable, because they were stopped, whereas both of the Kings goals were grade-A "high-danger" scoring chances, whose stoppability is much more questionable than the Vegas goals. The Vegas goals were all on low to mid danger scoring chances. I think the statisticians probably rated the 2nd and 3rd goal as "high danger" chances, simply because they went in.

Aside from the one flurry late in the 2nd period that Kuemper saved and went off the goal post, there wasn't a single other grade-A high-danger chance for Vegas in the game, while there were at least 4 for LA (Jokinen one-timer in 2nd, both goals, the Schmidt "save of the game"). While Kuemper played a solid game after he came in, I don't think he had to be spectacular to keep Vegas scoreless after Quick was pulled, whereas Lagace had to make some really good saves.

Sure, you can say that Vegas won the possession battle, but as evidenced by the records of three possession leaders this season (Edmonton, Carolina, & Montreal), as well as by the Kings from the previous 3 seasons, that doesn't really mean much.

Sure, you can say that Vegas won the possession battle, but as evidenced by the records of three possession leaders this season (Edmonton, Carolina, & Montreal), as well as by the Kings from the previous 3 seasons, that doesn't really mean much.
- tkecanuck341

We'll just have to disagree about our perception of the scoring chances in this game.

But citing just six examples (and I'd hardly count the 15-16 Kings, who easily made playoffs) to disregard puck possession as a whole seems a lacking argument. I'm not saying Corsi is all-important, of course, and teams in general care more about shot quality (which is why most of my writing and tracking is focused on chances these days).

On the larger point, do you think the Kings actually played well this game? Have they been playing well? Because I'm not seeing it.