I hope so, cause it was an awesome to see. With the core of the team coming back, even with the 58 mil cap, helps. Gagne and Richardson combine to almost 5mil, which should be more than enoung to get us to the new proposed cap.
well, I'm not a mathematician or statistician (far from it), so I cannot comment on its veracity. But if Vegas put odds on whether or not the Kings have 200 man-games lost to injury, I would take the over.
I think I learned of this fallacy way back in the 1970s, but for authority purposes here you go.
Quote:
The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle.
Someone else mentioned that they are stronger now than at the start of last season. Penner's divorce is behind him, Carter is on the team from the start, Richards is over his concussion, Brown and Kopitar should have more belief in themselves than before, Gagne is fully healthy for the first time in years and Sutter is the coach from the start. It's hard to repeat but the entire team is back and they were at their best from the trade deadline on.
how are more people not laughing at the dude that said he doesnt like the kings defense very much
i mean really now
2011/12: 2.07 GAA (2nd)/27.4 SA/G (5th)
2010/11: 2.39 GAA (6th)/27.9 SA/G (3rd)
2009/10: 2.57 GAA (9th)/27.6 SA/G (3rd) (and this was the one season of the 3 when Quick was really an average goalie)
2008/09: 2.76 GAA (11th)/28.1 SA/G (4th) (and this is the year before quick asserted himself, a year in which they trotted out erik ersberg (.900 sv%) and jason labarbera (.893 sv%) and rookie [though effective in a half season] quick)
they've also had the #4 PK 2 years running. the kings defense is better now than it was 3 years ago when it was already stellar. doesn't get too much worse than that, right?
they won't repeat in all likelihood, but i think they have a pretty solid shot, relatively speaking. i hope more people can refrain for the shoddy "they wont repeat because they were barely a playoff team" analysis. that's some pretty bad stuff right there.
Until someone actually repeats, the smart money says they don't.
I'll go further - they'll be lucky to make the second round.
We'll see.
I've also heard some analysts saying they have the best shot at doing so since Detroit did it in 1997-98, and also since Detroit came within one game of doing it in 2009.
Historic championship runs will do that for you. 16-4, 10-1 on the road, 3-0 lead in every series...no one in their right mind expects that kind of insane performance again, but I still contend its going to be very hard for anyone to beat Quick 4 games in a series.
All valid points, but the fact does remain that repeating in this day and age is very difficult.
I think the Kings have a better chance of doing so simply because they haven't had the exodus of players other Cup winners have the past few years.
However, winning the cup is a very tall order for any team, just once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
The lack of analysis on the part of responses truly astounds me.
[mod] .they trot out the same tired phrases: 8th seed, barely made playoffs, yada yada yada...
Take a look at their last 41 games, right at the time Carter was traded for:
Last 21 games in the regular season: 13-5-3, 3.1 GG, for the best in the league during that time period.
20 playoff games, off the chart at 16-4, 2.85 GG. For the full 41 games, which is a sustained, long haul, they averaged 2.98 GG.
Tell me a full season under Sutter isn't going to be productive, and I will tell you that you are full of **** and aren't doing your homework.
Lost in all those statistics are one basic question: Who is going to beat Jonathan Quick 4 times in one series?
Good luck with that.
The Kings have an outstanding chance of repeating.
The lockout will lower their chances. They are less likely to face teams in the first two rounds with key injuries to top players, because there will be less games for them to get injured in.
I'm not surprised a Canucks fan is bringing up the injury excuse again.
Even if they don't get the bounces, even if Quick and a few others don't put up the same performance, even if they have an injury or two to their top players, the Kings still destroyed every team in their path in 2012. To call it luck is just silly. Maybe they won't win it again but you could also say that if a couple of those things don't go their way, they'll be forced to play a Game 7 or not go up 3-0 in every series which would be like a normal Stanley Cup run. They were never pushed to the brink last season. Not even close. I don't think some of you realize just how historic that run really was when you say it was luck or that they barely made the playoffs. Besides, had they had Sutter and Carter the whole year, they would have likely won the division.
I'm not surprised a Canucks fan is bringing up the injury excuse again.
Both St Louis and Vancouver had key injuries, it was a factor that shouldn't be overlooked. Kesler, D. Sedin, Bieksa, Halak, Pietrangelo all either playing hurt or out completely. The loss of Gagne, who's been producing at a 40 points-per-season pace for the past two years can hardly be considered comparable to the injuries their first two round opponents faced. LA would be incredibly fortunate to see this scenario repeated in the 2013 playoffs.
Phoenix was the weakest WCF opponent since 2003, they could only ride Mike Smith's hot streak a couple of rounds against a Chicago team with no goaltending and a Nashville team with team chemistry issues. Again, a very lucky draw for LA.
As much props as NJ Devils should get for knocking off a good NY Rangers team and an offensively gifted Flyers team, they were a goal away from a first round loss to Florida of all teams. While they were competitive, they certainly were not as strong of an EC draw as the Bruins or the Penguins from a few seasons ago.
LA isn't going to be taking anyone by surprise next year, and the odds are stacked against a repeat. It's the same every offseason here on HF, every cup winner's fans thinks their team is the favorite to repeat next season. It never pans out.
Even if they don't get the bounces, even if Quick and a few others don't put up the same performance, even if they have an injury or two to their top players, the Kings still destroyed every team in their path in 2012. To call it luck is just silly. Maybe they won't win it again but you could also say that if a couple of those things don't go their way, they'll be forced to play a Game 7 or not go up 3-0 in every series which would be like a normal Stanley Cup run. They were never pushed to the brink last season. Not even close. I don't think some of you realize just how historic that run really was when you say it was luck or that they barely made the playoffs. Besides, had they had Sutter and Carter the whole year, they would have likely won the division.
3 of 4 opponents have major injuries while you have 0.
3 of 4 opponents have major injuries while you have 0.
You're right. Simon Gagne isn't a significant player when healthy. And that still doesn't explain the complete domination. You might lose a close one if you're missing a player but that's no excuse for being down 3-0 with two of those games being at home.
Oh hey, more excuses. I love when the "hey we had injuries" threads crop up after their team disappointingly exits from the playoffs.
Not just exits, but gets kicked to the curb. If you can't win more than 1 game (and that game being after being down 3-0) with one injured player, then how good of a team are you?
You're right. Simon Gagne isn't a significant player when healthy. And that still doesn't explain the complete domination. You might lose a close one if you're missing a player but that's no excuse for being down 3-0 with two of those games being at home.
He's about a 40 point player the last couple seasons. Basically a third liner. I'm glad that we are in agreement that LA had no significant injuries.
Quote:
Not just exits, but gets kicked to the curb. If you can't win more than 1 game (and that game being after being down 3-0) with one injured player, then how good of a team are you?
How would LA have done against a healthy Canucks and healthy Blues roster if they had key players out or playing hurt like Brown, Quick or Doughty? It wasn't just one player, Canucks had top line LW'er out and Kesler, Bieksa both playing hurt. Blues had Petrianglo, their #1 D-man out or playing hurt and Halak, their #1 goaltender out. Without Petriangelo helping him out or playing with a concussion, their backup goaltender had an even tougher job to do, and he was clearly not good enough to bail them out.
Injuries played a bigger role in paving the way for LA's run than you'd like to admit. That's why I see their run as more of an outlier with a lot of luck involved than indicative of a favorite that will be back for another run next year.
Every year this thread pops up and every year the fans of the previous Stanley Cup Winner chime in about how it is a good shot.
It's not likely. There are now 29 teams that have you as a main target, your players all likely won't have the same performances as previous years, and other teams will likely be stronger than they were before. Quick is a great goaltender but he has been beaten in a series before and will be beaten again.
Sure the Kings might have a chance to repeat. The Bruins, Blackhawks, Penguins, Red Wings, Ducks, and Hurricanes had a chance too. But there is a reason it hasn't happened since 1998.
He's about a 40 point player the last couple seasons. Basically a third liner. I'm glad that we are in agreement that LA had no significant injuries.
He's much more than that when healthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79
How would LA have done against a healthy Canucks and healthy Blues roster if they had key players out or playing hurt like Brown, Quick or Doughty? It wasn't just one player, Canucks had top line LW'er out and Kesler, Bieksa both playing hurt. Blues had Petrianglo, their #1 D-man out or playing hurt and Halak, their #1 goaltender out. Without Petriangelo helping him out or playing with a concussion, their backup goaltender had an even tougher job to do, and he was clearly not good enough to bail them out.
So the Canucks nearly got swept because they were missing one player? The Blues DID get swept because of the same thing? How good are the Canucks if they can't win a single game without Daniel? 2 of them at home. Weren't most people on this site claiming that it didn't matter who was in goal for the Blues after they saw Elliot's performance against the Sharks and throughout his All Star season? Then all of a sudden when the Kings spank them, it matters? The Blues got heavily outclassed against the Kings in that series. Injuries had nothing to do with it. Also, Pietrangelo, Kesler and Bieksa playing hurt is a bad argument. There were plenty of Kings playing hurt throughout the playoffs yet you seem to want to ignore that. Penner and Quick both had offseason surgery while Carter started the playoffs with a bum ankle. That same series against the Canucks. Brown was also clearly hurt after taking that hit from behind from Hanzal against the Coyotes. He wasn't the same player after that. And again, Gagne was missing as well as Clifford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79
Injuries played a bigger role in paving the way for LA's run than you'd like to admit. That's why I see their run as more of an outlier with a lot of luck involved than indicative of a favorite that will be back for another run next year.
Guess what. All cup winners have to be lucky not to get too injured. Your argument might hold more water if the Kings squeaked out their wins, but they dominated the entire playoffs. You don't luck your way into that and you don't luck your way into going up 3-0 is all four series, all of which were started on the road.
Last edited by NastiMarvasti: 09-02-2012 at 06:23 AM.
Say there is a lock out for half of the year. Do you think they will repeat or will they do the same thing as Boston
I ask this because Quick will get time to heal, players will be more rested,etc.
I say they won't win it but they get close.
Lockout or not, betcha they don`t move on past the 2nd round
Friendly ManiBROba
