• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

The whole shootin' match: Kings vs Devils

Dustin Brown...

Brown played the entire 82-game schedule for the third consecutive season, finishing with 22 goals, 28 assists and a plus-18 rating. He has a chance to become the second American-born player to captain a Stanley Cup champion. Derian Hatcher did it with Dallas in 1999.

Source: THN
 
cw said:
I'd say that when a team's playoff goals for more than doubles their playoff goals against, as LA is currently doing, that's a pretty dominant performance. I can't think of any team in modern history who has done that though I could easily be overlooking a team. Their dominance may not be as obvious because they're not lighting the lamp as much. But aside from the crazy Flyers-Pens series, they're the best offensive club in the playoffs playing dominanting defense.

In the games I've watched, once they get ahead, it's like their opponent has almost no chance. They barely seem to be able to muster a scoring chance and when they do, much more often than not, Quick is there to snuff it out.

I took the Canucks series as some sort of upset aberration. Didn't see many of those games. But during the Blues series, they just dismantled them. They smothered Phoenix pretty well too. I never would have predicted it prior to the playoffs.

Some of the reason they haven't lit the lamp as much as they might have has to relate to the defenses of their opponents: Blues (1st in GAA), Canucks (4th), Coyotes (5th). LA is second so the only top 5 NHL defense they haven't faced is the Rangers.

Towards then end of the Blues series, I developed a sense that these guys were playing at a different level and didn't look like they could be stopped ... because they were defensively dominating their very good opponents - just physically out skating and out muscling them.

If their 1.41 GAA holds up, that may be (not positive) the best playoff team GAA put up since '67 - in decades. It's right up there with the best. And it provides some statistical reinforcement for how stingy they've been defensively.

Only two of their key players are over 30: Mitchell & Scuderi. Average team age is 27 = pretty young. And most of these guys are signed for next season - they don't have a real cap issue (Penner & Stoll being the only notable UFAs).

I think the Kings have been very, very impressive. So much so, I figured the playoffs were basically over towards the end of the second round. I've never seen anything like it from an 8th seed.

That's why i said Kings in four for this round because really despite some close games, you always feel like they're in control.  It's hard to look any further then the fact that they've started every round winning the first three games.  That's insane. They're just so efficient about it to. 

I was actually considering if i would want the leafs to win like this (stupid i know..the leafs are never going to win..)  and not that I could ever afford to be so picky but it almost feels like this lacks any drama.  No real nailbiters or villains to overcome they're like a steamroller it's almost like they're playing in the wrong league. 
 
James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Statistically speaking, the Kings are on verge of capping one of most dominant recent Stanley Cup runs http://soc.li/MqocZZi
 
cw said:
I'd say that when a team's playoff goals for more than doubles their playoff goals against, as LA is currently doing, that's a pretty dominant performance. I can't think of any team in modern history who has done that though I could easily be overlooking a team. Their dominance may not be as obvious because they're not lighting the lamp as much. But aside from the crazy Flyers-Pens series, they're the best offensive club in the playoffs playing dominanting defense.

Phrased as a generality that's something that works. The problem is that "doubling" your opponents goal totals is not the same thing across the board. If I sweep you in four games by four identical scores of 10-5 the overwhelming likelihood is that we didn't play a single close game or a game that anyone would look at and say "boy that could have gone the other way". If we play a series and I beat you in all four games 2-1, again doubling your score, then simply by the nature of the game of hockey it's overwhelmingly likely that every game we played was close and that they all could have gone the other way simply because of the nature luck and randomness play in a one goal game. Those are fundamentally different things.

Because what we're doing, or what I asked, is whether or not something can properly be described using an imprecise adjective then what we're really talking about is the narrative and how closely it meshes with what we've seen.

One of the issues I have with the "The Kings have dominated" narrative is that it's co-existing with another that, while not fundamentally incompatible, strikes me as hard to reconcile with the first.

In the last thirty years or so of hockey we've seen there've been eight four game sweeps in the Final. In only two of those years did a goalie win a Conn Smythe. I didn't see Billy Smith win the Cup with the Islanders in 83 but my recollection of the '97 series is that Vernon's Conn Smythe, while well deserved, was in part the result of people not really appreciating what Lidstrom-Konstantinov did. When we watch teams who cruise towards championships goalies tend to not be received as the ultimate heroes.

So the idea that the Kings have both been historically dominant and Quick is the heavy front-runner for the Conn Smythe, I think, more plays to how I've seen their play. The trapping Devils teams, who did suffocate the opposition defensively and make it near-impossible for them to get back in it, won three Stanley Cups without a single one going to Martin Brodeur.

To my eye, the Kings have consistently won close games by virtue of good defensive play and stellar goaltending. That's not a knock on them. That's how a lot of teams win the Stanley Cup. That they've done it as consistently as they have is remarkable but it doesn't transform a series of close games into a situation where they overwhelmed anyone.

Like you say, their GF is tied to their opponents but so is their GAA. They've faced offenses ranked #5(Although without the 46 goals D. Sedin and Hodgson scored would have ranked #28), 15, 18 and 21(missing their best offensive player for the series). And when all is said and done they've gone 15-2 averaging 1.2 more goals per game then their opponents during times when both goalies have been in the net.

I understand that in this era where the game's parity has robbed the Cup finals of a lot of what used to make it great, clashes of titanic teams stacked everywhere, there's an instinct to construct a narrative that says that something remarkable or unusual is great. I do. But I think the relatively low interest in these finals is a good example of why that doesn't really play out. Greatness draws. Watching a team play spectacular hockey, even if no one else is up to the task, is a compelling thing to watch. We're not seeing that.
 
Nik? said:
I'm starting to think our Thin Man remake is going to be a box office disaster no matter how charming I am as Nora.

I'm a production guy, casting was never really my forte.
 
Nik? said:
cw said:
I'd say that when a team's playoff goals for more than doubles their playoff goals against, as LA is currently doing, that's a pretty dominant performance. I can't think of any team in modern history who has done that though I could easily be overlooking a team. Their dominance may not be as obvious because they're not lighting the lamp as much. But aside from the crazy Flyers-Pens series, they're the best offensive club in the playoffs playing dominanting defense.

Phrased as a generality that's something that works. The problem is that "doubling" your opponents goal totals is not the same thing across the board. If I sweep you in four games by four identical scores of 10-5 the overwhelming likelihood is that we didn't play a single close game or a game that anyone would look at and say "boy that could have gone the other way". If we play a series and I beat you in all four games 2-1, again doubling your score, then simply by the nature of the game of hockey it's overwhelmingly likely that every game we played was close and that they all could have gone the other way simply because of the nature luck and randomness play in a one goal game. Those are fundamentally different things.


Because what we're doing, or what I asked, is whether or not something can properly be described using an imprecise adjective then what we're really talking about is the narrative and how closely it meshes with what we've seen.

One of the issues I have with the "The Kings have dominated" narrative is that it's co-existing with another that, while not fundamentally incompatible, strikes me as hard to reconcile with the first.

In the last thirty years or so of hockey we've seen there've been eight four game sweeps in the Final. In only two of those years did a goalie win a Conn Smythe. I didn't see Billy Smith win the Cup with the Islanders in 83 but my recollection of the '97 series is that Vernon's Conn Smythe, while well deserved, was in part the result of people not really appreciating what Lidstrom-Konstantinov did. When we watch teams who cruise towards championships goalies tend to not be received as the ultimate heroes.

So the idea that the Kings have both been historically dominant and Quick is the heavy front-runner for the Conn Smythe, I think, more plays to how I've seen their play. The trapping Devils teams, who did suffocate the opposition defensively and make it near-impossible for them to get back in it, won three Stanley Cups without a single one going to Martin Brodeur.

To my eye, the Kings have consistently won close games by virtue of good defensive play and stellar goaltending. That's not a knock on them. That's how a lot of teams win the Stanley Cup. That they've done it as consistently as they have is remarkable but it doesn't transform a series of close games into a situation where they overwhelmed anyone.

Like you say, their GF is tied to their opponents but so is their GAA. They've faced offenses ranked #5(Although without the 46 goals D. Sedin and Hodgson scored would have ranked #28), 15, 18 and 21(missing their best offensive player for the series). And when all is said and done they've gone 15-2 averaging 1.2 more goals per game then their opponents during times when both goalies have been in the net.

I understand that in this era where the game's parity has robbed the Cup finals of a lot of what used to make it great, clashes of titanic teams stacked everywhere, there's an instinct to construct a narrative that says that something remarkable or unusual is great. I do. But I think the relatively low interest in these finals is a good example of why that doesn't really play out. Greatness draws. Watching a team play spectacular hockey, even if no one else is up to the task, is a compelling thing to watch. We're not seeing that.
If greatness draws, how come pro sports leagues have been so concerned with offence and not content to settle on admiring great defensive teams? Is it because they know that offence helps generate interest? I think that has a bunch to do with it.

Jack Nicklaus is still widely regarded as the greatest to play the game of golf - even as recently by a poll of golf writers after Tiger's most recent win tying him with Nicklaus' 73 PGA wins at Jack's Memorial tournament. During the years when Nicklaus was racking up "greatness", he really didn't get much love or respect nearly in proportion to what he was doing. The most popular man in the game did: Arnold Palmer. When talking about the greatest in the game of all time, Palmer is right up there with most popular but rarely does he get mentioned before Nicklaus, Hogan, Sneed, Jones and others as the greatest of all time. Palmer was darn good and probably one of the top 10 or so ... but not the greatest. Yet the fans adored Arnold and they didn't care nearly so much for Jack - who knocked Arnold off his perch. The 1986 Masters, his last major, was one of the first where Nicklaus finally got the overdue appreciation he deserved ... towards the end of his PGA career.

I saw Lee Trevino play head to head in a pairing with Jack at the Canadian Open in the 70s, after Nicklaus had taken the lead in majors won and set volumes of records that Tiger is still chasing. Even Trevino was the more popular player by a significant margin among the crowd that day.

The notion that "greatness" and good ratings or popularity is some sort of essential criteria required for establishing dominance in a sport strikes me as kind of silly or just trying to confuse the issue. The history of sport is riddled with examples of where a person or team was dominant in hindsight but didn't garner the ratings or respect the sporting performance arguably justified at the time. Just ask  Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards about ratings and popularity vs. dominance in his sport.

I'm not sure about Quick being a runaway front runner for the Conn Smythe. I think he's indeed the favorite but I've also seen polls and commentary making the case for Kopitar and earlier for Brown. A team cannot put up the numbers they have defensively without outstanding goaltending but they also cannot do it without a great performance defensively by the skaters in front of Quick. And we've seen that in some of the games. For example, the last game against the Devils and some against Phoenix & the Blues - where Quick had a fairly easy night making a couple of good stops but didn't have to stand on his head. In nearly half their games, the Kings have held their opponent to 24 or less shots including twice in the teens and many of their games have limited good scoring chances which is a credit to the skaters. We've seen them almost relentlessly bottle up teams in their opponent?s zone for truly lengthy spans of time when the opponent is desperately trying to even things up.

Since '67 expansion, the three dynasties most often mentioned are the Habs, the Islanders & the Oilers as they all won four Cups within five years - dominating their league. The 70s Habs were exceptional in offense and defense. The 80 Islanders were pretty darn good/consistently near the best defensively and a little above average offensively in two of their four years - very good the other two years. The Oilers were outstanding offensively but kind of middle of the pack defensively among playoff clubs going into the playoffs.

Much more often than not, we see strengths and some not so strong characteristics in Cup winners. Very few are like the 70s Habs - really strong/near the top of the league in almost every facet of the game.

The 2012 playoff Kings strike me as something like the 80s Oilers but the other way around. Instead of being dominant offensively and so-so defensively, they're dominant defensively and maybe so-so offensively (though 3rd among playoff teams). The following statistical facts underscore their outstanding, dominant defense:
- if the Kings hold the Devils to a goal or less tonight, in the 81 playoffs since the inception of the forward pass in 1930, only one Cup winner has a better playoff GAA - the '52 Wings who only played two series
- since '67 expansion, no Cup winner comes close to the Kings 1.41 GAA in the playoffs - reread that sentence because it's quite a statement of fact, particularly in light of all the recent rules changes made to increase scoring
- when you adjust for scoring era. the 2012 Kings slip to 2nd since '67 to the '77 Habs (maybe the best team ever with 10 losses in the reg season and playoffs combined) - and some of those Cup winners only had to win three rounds - they played fewer games making it easier to keep their GAA low.

Nearly all Cup winners in the past faced teams with offenses that were not as strong and teams that suffered from injuries. What the Kings are doing this playoff season is simply one of the most dominating defensive performances we've seen in the history of the NHL.

Now their defensive numbers help some with this upcoming stat but good defensive numbers help any Cup team. Since '67 expansion only one team had a better ratio of goals for vs. goals against: again, the '77 Habs, arguably the best team ever. Only three teams have scored more than 2 goals for every goal against. The other team, slightly below the Kings, is the dynasty 81 Islanders followed in 4th by the '78 Habs. The kings are in very good company with that stat with teams who were part of a dynasty and dominated their era.

Since the inception of four playoff series in 1980, if the KingS win tonight, they will tie the dynasty '88 Oilers for the best win% in the playoffs since '80. So these great stats by the Kings are reflected by them winning series handily.

Having referred to the Habs, Isles & Oilers dynasties isn't suggesting the Kings belong with them. They'll have to string together a number of great seasons before giving that consideration. And it will be tougher to keep them together with the CBA. But I think both from what I've seen and the stats that we're seeing a special and dominant defensive performance from this club - one of the best performances defensively in NHL history.
 
cw said:
If greatness draws, how come pro sports leagues have been so concerned with offence and not content to settle on admiring great defensive teams? Is it because they know that offence helps generate interest? I think that has a bunch to do with it.

If greatness doesn't draw, why do people watch Tiger Woods or Wayne Gretzky? Their sparkling personalities? Come on, are you really going to try and argue that people don't want to watch greatness in sports?

cw said:
Jack Nicklaus is still widely regarded as the greatest to play the game of golf - even as recently by a poll of golf writers after Tiger's most recent win tying him with Nicklaus' 73 PGA wins at Jack's Memorial tournament. During the years when Nicklaus was racking up "greatness", he really didn't get much love or respect nearly in proportion to what he was doing. The most popular man in the game did: Arnold Palmer. When talking about the greatest in the game of all time, Palmer is right up there with most popular but rarely does he get mentioned before Nicklaus, Hogan, Sneed, Jones and others as the greatest of all time. Palmer was darn good and probably one of the top 10 or so ... but not the greatest. Yet the fans adored Arnold and they didn't care nearly so much for Jack - who knocked Arnold off his perch. The 1986 Masters, his last major, was one of the first where Nicklaus finally got the overdue appreciation he deserved ... towards the end of his PGA career.

I saw Lee Trevino play head to head in a pairing with Jack at the Canadian Open in the 70s, after Nicklaus had taken the lead in majors won and set volumes of records that Tiger is still chasing. Even Trevino was the more popular player by a significant margin among the crowd that day.

I said that greatness draws, not that greatness gets you on the cover of Tiger Beat. There's a reason why teams like the Yankees and Manchester United and the Lakers have the largest non-local followings and it's not because they're lovable or wear snazzy uniforms. Similarly people tune in who hate those teams to see them lose. Being great can engender strong positive or negative reactions. What it doesn't foster is apathy.

I can't argue golf ratings of the 70's with you(not that golf ratings tell us much unless you have comparative numbers for tournaments with or without Palmer vs. Nicklaus or whoever) but I really would challenge you to present me with this list of great athletes or teams, universally acknowledged as such, that were reacted to with boredom instead of love or hate. And before you throw, I don't know, the 29-31 Philadelphia Athletics at me and how their attendance dropped off keep in mind that some allowances can be made for outside influences.

cw said:
Just ask  Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards about ratings and popularity vs. dominance in his sport.

I'm pretty sure you're able to understand the difference between "greatness draws" and "greatness is the only thing that draws" or "greatness draws above all else".

cw said:
- since '67 expansion, no Cup winner comes close to the Kings 1.41 GAA in the playoffs - reread that sentence because it's quite a statement of fact, particularly in light of all the recent rules changes made to increase scoring

That's really not as impressive as you think considering A) the levels of scoring right now being lower than at any time outside of the dead puck era in the late 90's and B) the relative quality of teams they're facing.

The reason there are rules being passed to increase offense, the reason it's still a hot button issue, is because teams are so inept offensively. That is contributing to what we're seeing. Nashville, St. Louis, the Rangers all held opponents under 2.00 goals a game in the first round. Defensive dominance, it seems, it coming cheap these days.

cw said:
Only three teams have scored more than 2 goals for every goal against.

Again, without talking about the number of actual goals this is inherently misleading. A team that wins every game 2-1 is scoring double the goals that the other team has scored. A team that wins every game 3-2 is only outscoring their opponents by 50%. Stating it as you are here? It's meaningless. There's nothing that reads that a 2-1 victory is more dominant or impressive than a 3-2 victory.

cw said:
Nearly all Cup winners in the past faced teams with offenses that were not as strong and teams that suffered from injuries.

Sure. Likewise, nearly all cup winners in the past faced teams that were good defensively. You can't have it both ways. If the other team's good defenses are limiting LA's scoring, their poor to laughable offenses are contributing to their GAA.

But step back even for a second and we get an even clearer picture of what's happening. Goals scored during these playoffs are at near record lows even with the nonsense that went on in Philadelphia-Pittsburgh.

Again, it's the ability to distinguish between great play by great players and a streak. Joe Dimaggio had a 56 game hitting streak during which he hit .408 with 15 HR but the reality is that a player could have a 56 game hitting streak where he hit .200 with 0 homeruns. What made that the act of a great player is the quality of his play, not simply the fact that he checked off a +1 to his hit total for 56 games A team going 15-2 is going to have a very good goal differential. That's what a winning streak means. But just checking off a +1 in the goal differential column doesn't make for great or dominant play.

The Kings have a better goal differential than the '02 Red Wings or the '01 Avalanche? Sure. Those teams lost more. They had to play really, really good teams on their way to the Stanley Cup. Admittedly, there is a point where where this becomes a semantic argument but I'm going to have a problem equating "dominant" with a good team winning a bunch of close games against a bunch of kind of crummy teams in a row.
 
bustaheims said:
Did Ron MacLean seriously just compare Drew Doughty to Kyle Wellwood?

I'm not watching so I don't know the context but I will say that the first time I saw both guys' faces I thought they looked a little, shall we say, rounder than pro athletes usually look.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top