Once the Seattle Kraken roster settles in each offseason, I like to project the team’s playoff chances by forecasting its goal scoring. You can review the last two offseason forecasts here: 2022-23 and 2023-24. I will eventually integrate the scoring forecast with playoff projections in an article closer to the beginning of the season.
The forecast includes adjusted goals for each player on the projected Kraken roster. I define adjusted goals as goals scored minus empty-net goals. Based on prior analysis, teams with an adjusted goal differential of plus one to plus five make the playoffs over 50 percent of the time. Adjusted goals against is an important part of that equation, but for the purpose of this article, I will only look at adjusted goals for.
Reviewing last year’s goal forecast
There is no denying that goal scoring was a tremendous challenge for the Seattle Kraken during the 2023-24 season. The Kraken’s adjusted goals for dropped by 68 season over season, which was a 25 percent decrease from 2022-23. We all expected a bit of a regression after a sky-high shooting percentage in 2022-23, but this was much more than anyone could have anticipated.
With a variance of 50 goals, it’s clear that my projection missed the mark. There is always expected variance from player to player, but those should balance out. A disappointing season for one player should be offset by a career season for another player. There was no such offset last season, and most players came in under their forecasted goal numbers.
Forecasting models are never that accurate, but the objective is to get as close as possible to the actual results. This model was not very close, so it’s worth evaluating what adjustments can be made for the 2024-25 forecast.
Last season’s model was based on a simple equation: player goals per game from the prior season multiplied by the expected games played in the forecasted season. I also made a few subjective adjustments, but for the most part, it was that simple. In retrospect, basing the rate of goal projection on one season is too narrow of a view. The model also has a challenge when systematic strategy changes are made by the team. The Kraken scored 75 fewer goals last season than they did during the 2022-23 season, but they also allowed 52 fewer goals.
For the 2024-25 Kraken season forecast, I will broaden the scope to include the prior three seasons.
Departures and arrivals for the 2024-25 Season
As of now, the Kraken have had five player departures this offseason, three forwards and two defensemen. None of the five were known for their goal scoring, but collectively, they contributed 34 adjusted goals in 2023-24.
The Kraken made a big splash in free agency with the additions of forward Chandler Stephenson and offensive-minded defenseman Brandon Montour.
The Kraken also added some depth with Ben Meyers, Joshua Mahura, and Maxime Lajoie, but their contributions to the team will be limited barring any injuries. Additionally, we anticipate Shane Wright and Ryker Evans becoming mainstays in the Kraken lineup next season.
Although Stephenson and Montour might not be projected to replace the 34 goals that departed the team last season, their real value lies in their ability to create additional scoring opportunities for other players. This forecast model will not adjust for this expected impact on other players.
Scoring forecast for the forwards
As mentioned above, I’ve taken the last three seasons of games played and adjusted goals scored to project for the 2024-25 season. The games played forecast is somewhat subjective, but I also looked at the average number played by each player to estimate how many they will skate in this coming season.
The maximum number of forecasted games for the 2024-25 season is 75. I am aware that several players averaged more than 75 games per season, but this was a conservative way of predicting for 2024-25.
A couple of callouts: Shane Wright’s projected rate based on his 16 NHL games to date suggests 20-plus goals for the 2024-25 season. However, I felt that forecasting a player’s contributions based on just 16 games was not a large enough sample size, so I adjusted his forecast down to 15 goals.
There are 984 total forward games played in each season (12 forwards times 82 games), so I filled the “other” category with the remaining games. That seems a little high for this category, but again, I felt it was a good conservative estimate. For the adjusted goals per game rate, I estimated 0.10 goals scored per game. The rate for this category last year was 0.114 per game, but that calculation included Tomas Tatar, who scored at a rate of 0.186 per game. The adjustment down was to be more conservative.
If I wanted to be even more cautious in my approach, I would probably change the projections for Jordan Eberle and Yanni Gourde to lower rates of adjusted goals in 2024-25 because both have had three years of declining adjusted goals scored per game. It could be wishful thinking, but I feel this potential decline will be offset by how Stephenson and Montour create more goal-scoring opportunities for other players on the ice.
Scoring forecast for the defensemen
Now that we have the methodology, forecasting the defensive group is straightforward.
The only thing I might add to this forecast is that it might be unrealistic to expect Montour to contribute 11.2 goals this coming season, his first with a new team. To counterbalance Montour’s optimistic forecast, projecting the “other” category to contribute zero goals over 42 games is a conservative approach.
Putting it together
Adding the forecast for the forwards and defensemen gives the Kraken 242 forecasted adjusted goals for this coming season. That feels high based on how last season went, but that could be the human behavior of recency bias creeping into my head. Regardless of what you think of the signings of Stephenson and Montour, both should make the Kraken better offensively this coming season.
Other considerations
The other big moves this offseason were behind the bench, with Dan Bylsma taking over the head coaching job and Jessica Campbell and Bob Woods being hired as assistant coaches. Collectively, the new staff will have a massive impact on how this team plays, but building that impact into a forecast model is impossible.
The Kraken power play will also influence goal scoring one way or another. The additions of Stephenson and Montour should help improve the power play, but measuring that impact is a bit of a challenge considering both previously played for teams that have been close to the best in the league over the last two seasons. The Vegas Golden Knights and Florida Panthers had more talent on their respective rosters than the Kraken will have this coming season, so past stats for Montour and Stephenson may not equate to what they will produce in Seattle.
Conclusion
My forecast for the Seattle Kraken’s 2024-25 season projects 242 adjusted goals, a notable increase from last season’s disappointing performance. While this estimate may seem optimistic, the additions of Chandler Stephenson and Brandon Montour, along with the potential emergence of Shane Wright and Ryker Evans, provide reasons for hope.
However, it’s essential to acknowledge the uncertainties surrounding coaching changes, power play performance, and potential variances in player production. As the season approaches, I’ll integrate this goal-scoring forecast with adjusted-goals-against projections to provide a comprehensive playoff prediction. For now, Kraken fans can cautiously look forward to an improved offensive output in the upcoming season.
What are your thoughts? Is my forecast too optimistic, or does it sound about right? If you would change it, how would you do it?
As a fan I like going in with the expectations this projection presents. They should undoubtedly be capable of significantly more than last season, but expecting a repeat of 2022-23 could be unrealistic and a setup for disappointment. I think a projection like this leaves room for a few guys to surprise us and out perform their projection, without us expecting more than this team can realistically deliver.
Joey Daccord had a GAA of 2.45 and Grubauer was 2.8. If the team can suppress high danger shots and continue the upward trend of blocked shots maybe we could see a goals against of around 213. According to the top graph a +29 goal differential makes it likely Seattle will return to the playoffs.
I agree with you..ish. Maybe I am being a bit conservative here, but last season’s Kraken team was so good defensively. I not confident they can repeat it that same performance defensively. If they are able to hit that 240+ goals, they don’t necessarily have to be as good to give themselves a good shot at making the playoffs. It could just be me trying to lower my own expectations.
This article is very good, thank you. I would like to see how the projected number stacks against top teams from last year. Is that 242 a playoff contender? Thanks for the great info.
JB
Thanks for this – although the projections above are reasonable, the one thing that sticks out is that only one player (McCann) is projected for 30 goals, of the remaining forward group only one other player (Bjorkstrand) is projected to hit 20. Given their contracts we simply HAVE to get more than 15 goals each from Stephenson and Burakovsky, and hopefully Tolvenan outperforms his projection as well.
Last year the two teams with lowest goal differential to make the Western Conference playoffs were Nashville and LV with differentials of + 21 and +22, respectively. Assuming the GF projection above of 242 and last year’s GA of 236 would only result in a 2024/25 Kraken goal differential of +6 and missing the playoffs again.
The Kraken’s GAA last year of 2.88 (236 goals) was fifth in the Western Conference, so it’s hard to expect significant improvement in 2024/25. So, improving their goal differential from last year’s -19 to a “playoff worthy” number of ~ +20-25 will probably come mostly from the offensive side and require the Kraken to score somewhere between 256-261 goals this upcoming season. Interestingly – using last year’s numbers – scoring 255-260 goals would only rank the team somewhere between 7th and 9th in team scoring in Western Conference so it’s at least attainable.
In my mind the question becomes “can this team improve its scoring output by 49 – 54 goals this upcoming season, and where will that production come from?” Mostly likely several players from the above forward group – Beniers, Burakovsky, Bjorkstrand, Tolvanen, Stevenson, McCann et al. – will need to outperform their projections above by maybe 5 goals each to make this happen. Having newcomers Montour and Wright (now full-time) will help as well. Just as a point of reference, the 2022/23 team scored 289 goals during that magical season. So, scoring 255-260 goals would be challenging, but wouldn’t require the “out of body experience” the 2022/23 team provided….
Apologies – last year’s team scored 217 goals – so the GF needed to get to a +20-25 goal differential, would only require an increasing scoring output of + 39-44 goals versus last season. I feel better already!
205 goals. They were terrible
The roster is mostly older and putting an incredible amount of pressure on Shane Wright to pull through. He could score 30+, wouldn’t be shocked. Beniers could get back over 25, Karts could bump up to 18-20 with increased minutes. Rehkopf could make the team and score 20. All the increase is (net) going to come from the young guys
The D should generate a lot more offensive production but will it be enough to offset the aging out of the top of the roster? We’ll probably know before Halloween
If I tracked what John was saying in the article… he’s used adjusted goals for his projection – goals scored minus empty-net goals. If you go with the same number for goals allowed, NaturalStatTrick has the Kraken surrendering 232 goals last season in all situations. Of those, however, 16 were against an empty net. That’s 216 adjusted goals allowed and would result in +26 goal differential using like numbers for this projection and last season.
That is correct. I don’t think my approach is perfect, it’s just how I did it and feel it gives me a good methodology. I looked at the 2024 playoff teams. The last teams in were the Washington Capitals with a -39 and the New York Islanders with adjusted goal differential of +1. Vegas was the last team in from the west with a +16. The first team out of the playoffs was the blues with a -9 so there is a huge gap between those two spots. The Kraken were a -11 so theoretical, the Kraken only need to score ~12 more goals this season to give them a 50% chance of making the playoffs but that assumes they allow the same number of goals against this season. I am just not confident they can maintain that adjusted goals against number. So it is good they are projecting 37 more adjusted goals this season.
This is a fun exercise and discussion.
I think the way you’ve approached this is the way to go. I looked at it from a few different angles including what Rachel mentioned below and they mostly seem too speculative.
I do think you’ve been maybe a bit overly conservative in your estimates. After getting burned by a highly disappointing season last year, that’s reasonable. The one “conservative” adjustment I would push back against is on Shane Wright. Even though it’s only 16 games, there has been an obvious progression in his development and I think accepting the 20 goal “projection” isn’t overly optimistic.
Go Kraken!!!
I’d consider looking at goals/60 minutes vs goals per game, with a prediction of which line a player is expected to be on and that lines number of minutes per game or, at a minimum an expectation of whether that player’s playing time is expected to go up or down.
As they’ve continued to age, I believe Eberle, Schwartz, Gourde and Tanev have gone down in their playing time per game. I’d expect that some of the younger players (Kartye, Evans) will have their minutes increase, increasing their scoring opportunities. I think Kartye, specifically, has more scoring potential if given more playing time, which I think we’ll see under the new coaches.
I think that is a good approach, but I think projecting time on ice is a challenge especially when considering special teams and line combinations. Right now, Kartye is still expected to be a 4th liner but he is the type of player that can move up and down the lineup. Gourde, Eberle and Tanev’s ice-time went up last season but Eberle’s (and Schwartz’) power play time could decrease with the arrival of Stephenson. Similarly, Evans is likely to see less power play time with the arrival of Montour so his ice time should go down. There is no right or wrong way to do this projection, so your approach is still a good one.