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.
