Yep he worse than Donald Brashear or Georges Laraue ofr a bunch of other Goons who can’t play Hockeyy at all

Why don’t you quit while your behind ??

Posted by Evilpens on 11/17/09 at 12:13 PM ET

Yep he worse than Donald Brashear or Georges Laraue ofr a bunch of other Goons who can’t play Hockeyy at all

I’m no defender of this hack, but if you’re going to complain about his post, at least understand what he’s saying please…

Posted by Garth on 11/17/09 at 12:33 PM ET

Ok… you obviouly haven’t watched any Kings games and are only going saying this based off numbers. Richardson is playing quite well. Very trustworthy in the defensive zone, which is proven by his PK minutes. No, he hasn’t scored, but he hussles and is constantly in the play. He hasn’t madeanay critical mistakes. Next time watch a few games before you go out andbanish someone to the title of worst player…jeez

Posted by Matt from LA on 11/17/09 at 01:08 PM ET

Richardson is snakebit for sure, and in the past 6 or 7 games he’s gotten some good chances around the net, but… he is not even the worst player on the KINGS much less the NHL.

Blind squirrels find the occasional acorn, so I assure you that there are a few guys who’ve lit the lamp once or twice this season that don’t give you the speed, the hustle and the intuition of Brad Richardson (who has been saddled with two speed bumps on his wings through these 21 games.)

Posted by Marc Nathan on 11/17/09 at 01:09 PM ET

Worse player this year is Martin Havlat!!!  Yes, I’m bitter cause he’s in my hockey pools, but he’s been a complete bust so far.  Robbie Earl has as many goals as him.  Who?  Exactl!

Posted by Stewie on 11/17/09 at 01:40 PM ET

Calling a guy the worst player because of his stats? Lame…  defensive forwards get no credit as is, thanks for perpetuating a lie “0 points = bad player”

Posted by Matt on 11/17/09 at 01:43 PM ET

Has to be Brashear (and I’m a Ranger fan).  Totally useless…

Posted by bigyatata on 11/17/09 at 01:48 PM ET

The very last line of the piece is a conclusion simply not supported by the data.

I really have no problem with anointing *anyone* as “the worst player in the league so far”, based on whatever criteria you like.  But you haven’t demonstrated he will continue to get results as bad as he has, nor have you looked at who he might be replaced by, or what you would expect *that player’s* results to look like.

Posted by Matt F on 11/17/09 at 01:54 PM ET

Los Angeles fans defence of Richardson.

Clearly you haven’t watched him play.  If you did you would see how hard he works.

Obvious responce.

I said a couple times in this post that he is hard working.  That is what allows him to maintain a roster spot despite failing to produce.  I watch him play.  He works hard and fails.  He hasn’t scored.  His opponents do score.  This is despite the fact he isn’t playing against particularly tough opponents.

Does that mean that Richardson will never score or that he won’t be better able to shutdown his opposition?  No.  There is nothing predictive in this post.  It is merely the observation that among players who are regularly playing this year, Brad Richardson has been the worst so far.  Other players may have been worse on less regular play (I.e. If LA fans want to argue Raitis Ivanans is bad also I fully agree.  He has fewer games played and significantly less ice time - so is less of a regular. )

Richardson has the most games played for a player with no points.  He has the 2nd worst adjusted +/- (among regulars) by one method (beaten by a player who has scored, has had some power play success and plays against tougher opposition).  That is strong evidence that Richardson has failed so far this season.  I watch him play and he clearly is working hard.  The effort is there and the talent isn’t. 

It is that hard work that keeps him in the lineup and makes it hard for coaches to replace him in each game’s roster.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 01:57 PM ET

Oh for God’s sake, Richardson is forechecking, backchecking, and playing with fire in his belly.  He was arguably (along with Parse) the most energetic King on the ice vs Florida at the end of a long road trip, and even got an overtime shift vs the Panthers which means he is far from useless. When TM shortened the bench after Smyth’s injury he played and helped the Kings get back into it after being down 2 goals. Looking at a 4th liner’s +/- is ridiculous anyway.  I could not disagree more strongly with this article.

Posted by Ogie on 11/17/09 at 02:07 PM ET

This entire blog is based on useless and made up stats.  He wants so bad to be relevant, but it just comes off as pathetic.

The only category you have any business ranking is worst hockey blogs.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 11/17/09 at 02:11 PM ET

Donald Brashear has 12 games played and is thus not nearly as much of a regular as Brad Richardson

MattFBut you haven’t demonstrated he will continue to get results as bad as he has

Correct Matt I have made no attempt to demonstrate anything like that.

This is not a prediction.  This is a look at the first quarter (approximately) of the season.  During it, Brad Richardson has been the worst regular in the league.  I bet he won’t be the worst regular the rest of the season because there are many players who come and go from the league with approximately the talent of Richardson.  It is a good bet that at least one of them will be worse.  I bet Richardson does start to score (he has done so in years past at a relatively low level).  I bet Richardson has better success shutting down opponents (again he has done better in years past).  Worst case, if Richardson continues to fail at this level I bet he stops being an NHL regular.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 02:13 PM ET

everyone was doing so well just ignoring this guy for the most part. if everyone stops commenting on this trite maybe PSH will *#$%@& off into oblivion. stop paying attention to the problem and it will go away

Posted by dickshilling on 11/17/09 at 03:10 PM ET

It is hard to bench somebody who is clearly trying very hard, but he is failing.  It would be in Los Angeles’s best interests to get Richardson out of their everyday lineup.

Maybe the fact is is that he contributes in ways that is not shown in a few select stats that you’ve chosen.

Maybe he has a lot of hits. (His hits per 60 minutes played is 5th on the Kings)

Maybe he brings a leadership role in the locker room. 

Maybe the goaltenders have been a little luckier against his 26 shots this year than others. 

He’s obviously not been great. I’m not arguing that.  But just to say his no points and a negative +/- and say that he has failed and that it would be in LA’s best interest to take him out of the line-up making a leap that you are really not ready to take.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/17/09 at 03:14 PM ET

Maybe he has a lot of hits. (His hits per 60 minutes played is 5th on the Kings)

Richardson works hard.  As a result he does get some hits.  No question.  But does saying his hits per 60 minutes is fifth on the team convey any information either positive or negative?  I don’t think it does.  What is important is that he either scores goals or prevents them.  Whether he hits everyone without scoring or not or hits everyone without preventing them or not doesn’t change the basic equation.

Maybe he brings a leadership role in the locker room.

He is a well liked player who probably does offer some leadership.  That is not playing hockey.  His hockey to date has been poor.  If you want his leadership and his hockey is poor, make him an assistant coach.

Maybe the goaltenders have been a little luckier against his 26 shots this year than others.

Likely this is true also.  There are many players at the bottom of the talent pool in the NHL.  The difference between them is usually small.  The one who performs the worst is both a weak player and an unlucky player.  Both must strike at the same time to be the worst regular in the NHL at any given time.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 03:21 PM ET

Richardson works hard.  As a result he does get some hits.  No question.  But does saying his hits per 60 minutes is fifth on the team convey any information either positive or negative?  I don’t think it does.  What is important is that he either scores goals or prevents them.  Whether he hits everyone without scoring or not or hits everyone without preventing them or not doesn’t change the basic equation.

Does the fact that he has play even strength with Peter Harrold and Raitis Ivanans change the equation? Or should we expect him to be lightin the lamp with those two? And Raitis Ivanans has played in one less friggin game than Richardson so that disqualifies him from your assesment? You don’t think he could be partly responsible for that -7 of Richardson’s? How about factoring the time Richardson spends on the ice killing penalties? Or should he be scoring SH? How about the fact that he is in the lineup on a daily basis for a team that is off to a great start? Nope you are right, he isn’t scoring so he isn’t contributing. I’m sure if he was on the top line in Toronto he’d have potted a few goals by now and then you’d have someone else to assess as objectively.

Nice assesment there!

Posted by Your Mom on 11/17/09 at 03:42 PM ET

To the original poster, since you love stats so much, I wonder if you checked Richardson’s “Bottle Up the Puck in the Attacking Zone So That Opponents Cannot Set Up a Breakout” stat.

Or maybe his “Percentage of the Time In Proper Defensive Position” stat.

Or how about his “Percent Effectiveness of Stick Check Attempts” stat.

Or possibly his “Times Effectively Standing Up In the Neutral Zone So That Opponents Cannot Enter Their Attacking Zone With Speed” stat.

Or perhaps his “Times Pestering the Opposition Into Circling Back Behind their Own Goaltender And Having to Start a Play All Over Again” stat.

Or what do you think about his “Times Thwarting the Opposition By Getting Into Passing Lanes on the Penalty Kill” stat.

Oh—do I understand correctly that those stats AREN’T on your stat sheet ???

Posted by Ogie on 11/17/09 at 03:50 PM ET

It certainly doesn’t help Richardson to play with weak linemates (a problem he shares with most 4th liners in the NHL).  That doesn’t explain why his adjusted +/- (rate stat) is worse than either of them.

LA Kings fans seem to want me to admit that Raitis Ivanans is worse than Richardson (which looking at the past couple years of data is clearly true).  The question is how much of a regular is Ivanans?  Yes he has only missed on game this season, but Richardson has approximately twice the playing time.  Richardson plays am uch more regular shift.

Does the fact that Richardson has spent about half a minute a game playing on the Kings second unit penalty kill change things significantly?  Not really.  It is actually quite in character with the kind of player Richardson is.  He is a very hard working player.  Hard working players are often chosen to be penalty killers.  The problem is that despite his hard work, he is failing.  That is usually the case when you find the worst regular in the NHL.  He works very hard.  It is that hard work that keeps him in the NHL as a regular.  It is hard to bench somebody who works that hard regardless of if they fail on the ice.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 03:51 PM ET

Ogie suggests I look at some “stats” he made up like Percent Effectiveness of Stick Check Attempts, which despite being poorly defined shows the problem with Brad Richardson.  He is clearly failing when it comes to scoring.  He is clearly failing when it comes to preventing scoring - despite not playing against top opposition.  That said he is an NHL player.  You don’t stay in the NHL if you can’t stick check (at least not playing Richardson’s role - maybe an offensive player could).  If we reduce the expectations of Richardson we can show that he is hitting our lowered expectations.  Given that he is a hard working good guy, it is much more satisfying to do that then it is to admit he has not been getting the job done.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 03:56 PM ET

The point is that there is no way on earth that your drastically limited statistical metrics (limited to points per game and +/-) come anywhere near telling the whole story on what Richardson is doing, or indeed what practically any 4th line defensive forward in the NHL is doing.

The Kings are winning, Richardson is accomplishing exactly those little things that good coaches teach forwards to do defensively and that don’t show up on stat sheets, and he is providing a spark.  He does a good smart job of playing keepaway from opposing forward lines and is doing just what his coaches want. 

There are good reasons why he’s in the lineup game after game and gets trusted to play defensively against superior firepower and on the penalty kill, and those reasons go well beyond what his minus number is (which is hockey’s most useless stat anyway), or how many times he’s been snakebit shooting the puck.

There is the further issue that Richardson would get more ice time, and hence more scoring chances if the Kings forward lines weren’t already pretty stable all season so far, from 1st to 4th.  When there is an injury on one of the top 3 lines like Smyth’s last night vs Florida, Richardson then has the ability to survive the cut on the coach’s bench-shortening and truly help the Kings come back from 2 goals down to win the game.  There are lots of worse regulars in the league right now.

Posted by Ogie on 11/17/09 at 04:25 PM ET

Ogie

I must correct one point.

You claim: (Brad Richardson) gets trusted to play defensively against superior firepower when for the most part this is false.  Here are this year’s LA Kings ranked by the quality of opposition they have faced.  You will find that no member of the Kings has played as much 5 on 5 ice time as Richardson so far this year against a weaker calibre of opposition than Richardson has played against.

That is a big factor in why I chose to single him out.  He is failing against weak opposition.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 04:31 PM ET

I negated to mention that of players who play regularly (more than five games this year), he is second on team in hits per 60/min.  Yes, I would say that is something positive, since there are around eighteen players on a team. 

In the quality of opponents chart you provided, he’s ahead of two players that play regularly…I don’t know what you are talking about.

Finally, is GA per 60 minutes is right in the middle on the LA Kings So he’s clearly not a bad defender. 

Of course, any player who hasn’t scored is going to have a poor +/-.  I expect a low +/- and quality of opponent for most fighters/fourth liners.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be fourth liners.

The only claim that you could make with the stats right now is that he’s not scoring.  But the worst player?  Nope.  He’s doing what he is paid to be doing, hustling, keeping the puck from going in the net excessively and making a lot of hits. 

Remember, these new advance stats are great, but as always, they can only say so much.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/17/09 at 06:03 PM ET

Look, it’s hard to pick the worst player in the NHL being that there are 30 teams each playing 82 games.  But like other kings fans before, I’ll reiterate that Richardson has been far from the worst player on his team.  He eats up minutes on the 4th line, forechecks hard, does not turnover the puck, and shows up consitantly and plays hard every night.  On the kings, I’d easily say he has been better than Harrold, Ivanans, and Purcell which is precisely why he’s never been benched.  These other three haven’t played all 21 games because they haven’t been as good in the games they have played.

The kings have gotten 0 goals from their fourth line this season.  So if he has a -7 in 21 games that means he’s on the ice for a goal against once every 3 games.  Two or three games ago Richardson stole the puck from the goalie behind the goal and centered it to Peter Harrold who was staring at a wide open 4x6.  He missed.  That puck goes in, Richardson has his one point and is a -6 and you don’t even see his name when you are looking for your worst player.

Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that a guy who isn’t the worst player on a team that has been playing very well would be the worst player in the NHL.  As a kings fan, I am more than happy with his performance as a 4th line center and recognize that what we really need is competent 4th line wingers that can help him do his job better.

Posted by Redcard on 11/17/09 at 06:11 PM ET

In the quality of opponents chart you provided, he’s ahead of two players that play regularly…I don’t know what you are talking about.

I said that no player with morep laying time than Richardson has a worse quality of opposition that he has playede against.  That is a correct statement.

Presumably you are calling Peter Harrold and Raitis Ivanans regulars.  That is debatable - since the erm is not wel defined.  Richardson has about two times the playing time that Ivanans has this year and about one third more than Harrold.  At this point, Richardson has a worse adjusted +/- than either does.

Finally, is GA per 60 minutes is right in the middle on the LA Kings So he’s clearly not a bad defender. 

Given the low quality of opposition he faces, being “average” in goals against makes him worse than average defensively.  The players with a worse goals against unifromly play against better oposition (and in most cases much better opposition).  The only player who has a worse goals against and a worse quality of opposition simultaneously is Trevor Lewis (who is clearly not a regular with only 5 games played).

Those numbers show that so far, Brad Richardson has done the worst defensively against weak opposition on the team.  They say nothing positive about him.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 11/17/09 at 06:21 PM ET

If your piece didn’t constitute a prediction, then why did you conclude with, “It would be in Los Angeles’s best interests to get Richardson out of their everyday lineup.”? You’re not suggesting they get a time machine, are you?

Do you think you would be able to defend your concluding sentence to (say) an assistant GM of the Kings, who sent you a curious email? I don’t think you would. You wrote half a paragraph too much.

Posted by Matt F on 11/17/09 at 06:47 PM ET

How about Ted Purcell who is now laying out as a healthy scratch because he doesn’t seem to fit into our defensive system?  Ivanans and his STUPID offensive zone hooking penalties also should be an honorable mention.

By calling Richardson out for being the worst player, you have garnered less credibility than Eklund.  This guy plays his butt off game in and game out and does more for the team than one outside of the Kings organization would even know.

The ENTIRE ANAHEIM DUCKS TEAM should tie for worst player in the NHL.  They flat out SUCK!!!!

Posted by Buster from The Home For Retired Elvis Impersonators on 11/17/09 at 07:28 PM ET

Hopefully, along with the puck, his writing will stop here also.

Posted by The on 11/17/09 at 10:02 PM ET

“Richardson has never been an NHL star, but he is a hard working player who once scored 22 points for the Colorado Avalanche in 2006/07”

...were you expecting him to have a big season then?... he could still get to that 22 point mark, with over 60 games to go in the season.

Terrible writing skills, serious need of an editor.

Posted by indeed on 11/17/09 at 10:09 PM ET

Andrew Peters, any other answer is incorrect.

Posted by John on 11/17/09 at 11:20 PM ET

Hopefully, along with the puck, his writing will stop here also.

That comment is full of win.

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 11/18/09 at 08:04 AM ET

Richardson is pretty bad, at least statistically, which is part of the reason he could never crack the lineup last year (kind of a permanent healthy scratch).  but personally I prefer him to the player he replaced from last season, John Zeiler who never ever, ever scores.  with Richardson, you know at least there’s an outside chance.  but based on who his linemates are, not very likely.

my nominee for worst regular NHL player is Dominic Moore.

Posted by brianguy from So Cal on 11/18/09 at 01:38 PM ET

Richardson GWG!

Posted by brianguy from So Cal on 12/02/09 at 01:00 AM ET

This article gets worse and worse with every new game the Kings play.  The Kings are winning and outworking teams, with Brad Richardson a major part of that equation game in and game out.  Richardson is playing great as a defensive forward and even just got 3 goals in 3 games, one per game. 

This article is just completely ridiculous, basically.

Posted by Ogie on 12/11/09 at 01:23 PM ET

Ogie

Around the time I wrote this article I could have also written one calling Anze Kopitar the top scorer in the NHL.  He was the top scorer at that time (give or take a couple days - I haven’t looked up exactly when he last held the scoring lead).

Today Kopitar is 6th in league scoring.  It would be ridiculous to claim he is the top scorer in the league today - and I would not be claiming that.

The same logic holds for Brad Richardson.  I think its a good pick to call him the worst regular player in the league (so far in the season) on the day the article was written.  Clearly he has not been the worst from that point onward - same as Kopitar has not been the top scorer from that point onward.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/11/09 at 02:16 PM ET

UPDATE TIME!

This doesn’t disprove your thesis that “Brad Richardson was the worst regular a month ago,” but you notice that when he finally gets a shot to play on a decent line and he puts up 15 points in 21 games since December 1st.

Fundamentally, it’s not fair to judge a guy based solely on his centering a line for 9 min/game with Raitis Ivanans (a stone-hands goon with 12 goals in 260GP) and Peter Harrold (a d-man to forward convert). 

You basically picked the guy with the worst opportunities in the NHL at that time, not the worst player.

Posted by Carter on 01/18/10 at 12:54 AM ET

this thread becomes funnier each day.  granted, I don’t know if anyone could have really predicted the impact Richardson has had the last 20 or 25 games, but it’s obvious he’s been a real spark for his team. 

but it’s kinda like the people who were bemoaning the play of Michal Handzus previously. of course, much of that had to do with recovering from injury.  now he more or less looks like the comeback player of (whatever predefined time period you choose).

Posted by brianguy from So Cal on 01/18/10 at 02:55 AM ET

Well lookit here!  Brad Richardson, the “Worst Player in the NHL” just got nominated for the 2010 Masterton Trophy by the Los Angeles Chapter of the Professional Hockey Writers’ Association…

http://www.lakingsnetwork.com/hammond/?p=5267

Of course I knew the first day that this very bad article got posted that it was not in the Kings “best interests to get Richardson out of their everyday lineup” and tried to explain why.  This fell on deaf ears as the article writer felt continually compelled to defend his massive fail.

You see,  a player’s value in the NHL goes far beyond how many points he is scoring, as long as the whole team is scoring enough or more than enough, which the Kings have done this season.

But anyway, Richardson has scored 37 points in his last 56 games as of April 5—- just for the record.

Posted by Ogie on 04/06/10 at 04:09 PM ET

This entire article is a FAIL.

Posted by The Los Angeles Kings fanbase on 04/20/10 at 05:49 AM ET