Simple Stats Easy To Understand: Don't Paint A Pretty Picture
This is for all you "Calm Downers" out there who wonder why people get so angry after a loss even if it was only the 2nd loss in regulation in a month:
Since the League expanded to 24 teams 19 seasons ago (ya know '92-'93, our favorite year), 38 different teams have played in the Stanley Cup Finals. Only 5 of those teams finished in the bottom half of the league offensively during that regular season. The lowest any of those teams ever finished offensively during the regular season was 18th (2010 Flyers of John Stevens ironically).
In that period of time only 2 teams in the bottom 5 of the league offensively EVEN MADE THE PLAYOFFS (1996 Blues & 1998 Senators). Neither of which was DEAD LAST in offense, but certainly in the bottom 5 in GF. That's 2 teams out of 304 playoffs teams that made the playoffs despite being bottom 5 in goals scored and neither was DEAD LAST like the Kings are!
The last team to make the playoffs while being dead last in offense was the 88-89 Canucks (23 years ago) when only 5 teams in the league missed the playoffs.
The chances the Kings even make the playoffs with this offense are atrocious. In fact it would be a league first considering 14 teams will miss the playoffs.
So when the Kings lose at home, scoring 1 goal or get shut out by the worst team in hockey at home or when they pile up the OTLs... have more perspective... look at the overall, it's not good at all and the clock is ticking.
This is for all you "Calm Downers" out there who wonder why people get so angry after a loss even if it was only the 2nd loss in regulation in a month:
Since the League expanded to 24 teams 19 seasons ago (ya know '92-'93, our favorite year), 38 different teams have played in the Stanley Cup Finals. Only 5 of those teams finished in the bottom half of the league offensively during that regular season. The lowest any of those teams ever finished offensively during the regular season was 18th (2010 Flyers of John Stevens ironically).
In that period of time only 2 teams in the bottom 5 of the league offensively EVEN MADE THE PLAYOFFS (1996 Blues & 1998 Senators). Neither of which was DEAD LAST in offense, but certainly in the bottom 5 in GF. That's 2 teams out of 304 playoffs teams that made the playoffs despite being bottom 5 in goals scored and neither was DEAD LAST like the Kings are!
The last team to make the playoffs while being dead last in offense was the 88-89 Canucks (23 years ago) when only 5 teams in the league missed the playoffs.
The chances the Kings even make the playoffs with this offense are atrocious. In fact it would be a league first considering 14 teams will miss the playoffs.
So when the Kings lose at home, scoring 1 goal or get shut out by the worst team in hockey at home or when they pile up the OTLs... have more perspective... look at the overall, it's not good at all and the clock is ticking.
LOL I love it,
Have more perspective, while you base your argument on one stat and one stat alone,
Have more perspective, while you base your argument on one stat and one stat alone,
THAT is golden.
You only need to see one stat. If they don't score goals they won't make the playoffs. PERIOD. It's called historical perspective...maybe you should get some genius.
You only need to see one stat. If they don't score goals they won't make the playoffs. PERIOD. It's called historical perspective...maybe you should get some genius.
LOL Ok, so if I go back and find all the teams that missed the playoffs and find that they have piss poor defense, all I need is that one stat to conclude that LA WON'T miss the playoffs because their defense is solid...
Right? Using your logic and historical perspective and all...right?
LOL Ok, so if I go back and find all the teams that missed the playoffs and find that they have piss poor defense, all I need is that one stat to conclude that LA WON'T miss the playoffs because their defense is solid...
Right? Using your logic and historical perspective and all...right?
LOL you might need to look up to catch the point of that post.
You really think it was ONE stat that made those teams miss the playoffs? Really?
Really?
Yup. Really. You see the object of hockey is to outscore your opponent...if you can't score goals, you won't be able to.
You see the only reason the Kings aren't bottom feeders right now is because the NHL is the only major league on the planet that rewards teams for losing. The Kings are the largest beneficiaries of this charity.
Now that you've learned that we can move onto addition, subtraction and if you're a quick learner, maybe we'll get into multiplication tables...smart a$$
Kings ****ing suck. How do people defend this trash? It's as if people don't hold themselves to some ****ing standards. I haven't been to a game at Staples since NJ was here and I have season seats.
Yup. Really. You see the object of hockey is to outscore your opponent...if you can't score goals, you won't be able to.
You see the only reason the Kings aren't bottom feeders right now is because the NHL is the only major league on the planet that rewards teams for losing. The Kings are the largest beneficiaries of this charity.
Now that you've learned that we can move onto addition, subtraction and if you're a quick learner, maybe we'll get into multiplication tables...smart a$$
LOL wow,
The Kings are the largest beneficiaries of this.....by a point in the league, and by 2 points in the West...
Yep, real big helping hand they've gotten,
But if you want to strip the Kings of their 10 points, that puts their total at 46....of course..you would have to do that for everyone else around them...as well
Hmmm...seems like the Kings would be....in the same exact place.
Damn....there goes that theory....
Anyways bud, you have fun with your one stat outweights all other stat theory, and don't be surprised by how many people laugh at you Chicken Little...
LOL Ok, so if I go back and find all the teams that missed the playoffs and find that they have piss poor defense, all I need is that one stat to conclude that LA WON'T miss the playoffs because their defense is solid...
Right? Using your logic and historical perspective and all...right?
Good point. It IS possible to oversimplify stats and this forum has examples of that every day.
LOL you might need to look up to catch the point of that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay
LOL there you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay
LOL wow,
I sense a trend.
History dictates that this team is in deep **** to make the playoffs, to say nothing of being successful in them. Their vaunted "defense first system" has gone right out the window the last two playoffs. So the one thing they're actually good at has been a complete non-factor in the post season, if they can even get there. Pile on top of that the complete inability to score in any situation, and there is plenty of reason to be concerned.
History dictates that this team is in deep **** to make the playoffs, to say nothing of being successful in them. Their vaunted "defense first system" has gone right out the window the last two playoffs. So the one thing they're actually good at has been a complete non-factor in the post season, if they can even get there. Pile on top of that the complete inability to score in any situation, and there is plenty of reason to be concerned.
Against SJ, yes, against VAN I don't know.
Either way they overacheived in both series, took both teams to the edge, and in one series was missing their franchise player...
Good point. It IS possible to oversimplify stats and this forum has examples of that every day.
2 out of 304 playoff teams made the playoffs despite scoring in the bottom 5 of the league in almost 20 years of hockey. That's less than 1%. That's a large sample size and a pretty easy conclusion.
Hey if you guys wanna do the research and counter mine...that's fine. Easy for this guy to criticize my numbers when he's not willing to crack open a book or even Google something.
2 out of 304 playoff teams made the playoffs despite scoring in the bottom 5 of the league in almost 20 years of hockey. That's less than 1%. That's a large sample size and a pretty easy conclusion.
Hey if you guys wanna do the research and counter mine...that's fine. Easy for this guy to criticize my numbers when he's not willing to crack open a book or even Google something.
20 out of 304 playoff teams also won the Stanley Cup when they won 16 games despite what they scored in the off-season.
Oh no.....now what....
don't worry, your head won't asplode if you don't think too much on it...
20 out of 304 playoff teams also won the Stanley Cup when they won 16 games despite what they scored in the off-season.
Oh no.....now what....
don't worry, your head won't asplode if you don't think too much on it...
First of all it's 19, not 20... Secondly, I encourage you to find out how well those 19 SC winners did during the regular season offensively. Here's a hint, only one of the 19 finished in the bottom half of the league in scoring and they had the greatest goalie in hockey history playing behind them, who's still playing at a high level.
Uh oh....there's that pesky "gotta score goals to be successful" concept rearing its ugly head. Must be true I guess, it keeps coming up in this thread.
First of all it's 19, not 20... Secondly, I encourage you to find out how well those 19 SC winners did during the regular season offensively. Here's a hint, only one of the 19 finished in the bottom half of the league in scoring and they had the greatest goalie in hockey history playing behind them, who's still playing at a high level.
Uh oh....there's that pesky "gotta score goals to be successful" concept rearing its ugly head. Must be true I guess, it keeps coming up in this thread.
I encourage you to find how how the first 14 of those winners did defensively.....but...you won't, you are still stuck on the , "We gotta score 6 goals a game holy crap!" BS.
Again, one stat does not equal anything when there are as many variables as there are that go into winning the Stanley Cup...
But go ahead chicken little, keep on yelling how one stat means everything.
YOU were the one that said the Kings would be bottom feeding without the charity point.
I proved you wrong.
YOU glossed over it like you never brought it up to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, I am trying to remain positive and believe that they will right the ship, especially with a new coach, but in what manner did you prove anyone wrong? How will examing any other stat disprove the stat that Face Wash just presented? There is one team in 23 years that has made the playoffs scoring at the rate the Kings are. The fact that once teams go onto to win the Stanley Cup once they make the playoffs regardless of their pre playoff performance has no bearing on the stat Face Wash discussed. It is a concerning stat, and it makes common sense that they need to address it quick to be contenders. They can defy the odds sure, and maybe those two teams that made the playoffs were great defenders which increased their chances of making the playoffs, but that one stat is an issue.
Ok Mr. Lazy, what stat would you like me to look up for you? What's your theory, that a good defensive team, no matter how many goals they score has as good a chance as any to win a Cup? You tell me... I'll do the work for you.
Don't get me wrong, I am trying to remain positive and believe that they will right the ship, especially with a new coach, but in what manner did you prove anyone wrong? How will examing any other stat disprove the stat that Face Wash just presented? There is one team in 23 years that has made the playoffs scoring at the rate the Kings are. The fact that once teams go onto to win the Stanley Cup once they make the playoffs regardless of their pre playoff performance has no bearing on the stat Face Wash discussed. It is a concerning stat, and it makes common sense that they need to address it quick to be contenders. They can defy the odds sure, and maybe those two teams that made the playoffs were great defenders which increased their chances of making the playoffs, but that one stat is an issue.
The Charity point post, he said the Kings would be a bottom feeding team without it. Apparently he thought the Kings would be the only team giving it up.
Don't get me wrong, I am trying to remain positive and believe that they will right the ship, especially with a new coach, but in what manner did you prove anyone wrong? How will examing any other stat disprove the stat that Face Wash just presented? There is one team in 23 years that has made the playoffs scoring at the rate the Kings are. The fact that once teams go onto to win the Stanley Cup once they make the playoffs regardless of their pre playoff performance has no bearing on the stat Face Wash discussed. It is a concerning stat, and it makes common sense that they need to address it quick to be contenders. They can defy the odds sure, and maybe those two teams that made the playoffs were great defenders which increased their chances of making the playoffs, but that one stat is an issue.
someone with common sense...I always did like you Sue. And the 88-89 Canucks played in a 21-team league...only 5 teams missed the playoffs, so it's not even relevant.
Good point. It IS possible to oversimplify stats and this forum has examples of that every day.
