HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

DEBATE: Where would the Kings be in the standings if everyone were healthy all year

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2004, 12:46 PM
  #1
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
DEBATE: Where would the Kings be in the standings if everyone were healthy all year

My friend and I were debating this topic over the weekend and were prety far apart. I would be interested to see what the rest of you think. I didn't post this on the King's board because I would be most interested in hearing from posters of other teams

Here are the current standings:
1 Detroit 65 37 17 9 2 85
2 Colorado 64 33 15 11 5 82
3 San Jose 65 32 16 11 6 81
4 Vancouver 65 35 19 7 4 81
5 Dallas 65 32 22 11 0 75
6 Nashville 64 32 23 7 2 73
7 Calgary 64 32 24 5 3 72
8 Los Angeles 65 25 18 15 7 72
-------------------------------------------
9 St. Louis 64 29 25 8 2 68

Here are the Kings injuries:

Jason Allison C - Missed 65 games Neck
Adam Deamdarsh LW-Missed 65 games Concussion
Jared Aulin C Missed 65 games -Shoulder Surgery
Ziggy Palffy RW Missed 28 games Shoulder Surgery
Martin Straka C Missed 23 games Knee
Dustin Brown RW Ankle I-R.
Scott Barney C Shoulder I-L.
Aaron Miller D Missed 43 games-wrist
Lubomir Visnovsky D Missed 18 games Neck

Roman Cechmanek G 2nd time on IR out since 2-21

The Question : How many points would these players, if healthy, have earned the Kings?

 
Old
03-01-2004, 12:48 PM
  #2
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,273
vCash: 500
What if' galore, I don't know on an exact point total, but I think the Kings should have won their division, but would have fallen to the #3 seed overall in the West.

If they wouldn't have done that, they would have been such an underachiever I couldn't see them doing any better than they are now.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 12:51 PM
  #3
Douggy
Registered User
 
Douggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
They would be good, but probably as good as Dallas, if not San Jose. They would be competing for the Division, and who knows: maybe they still have a shot at it.

Douggy is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 12:53 PM
  #4
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
The Question : How many points would these players, if healthy, have earned the Kings?
Theoretically, they'd probably be much nearer the top of the conference, so about 10-15 points I'd guess. There's just no accounting for these kind of things though, the absence of top players can make everyone else work lots harder because they lack something to fall back on. So, hard to say really, but on paper they'd be good for another 10 points at least at this point, they'd likely turn some of those numerous ties into wins!

What they've done without those guys is totally amazing though.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 12:58 PM
  #5
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose
Country: Italy
Posts: 24,224
vCash: 500
Kings = Anti-Lightning

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:02 PM
  #6
Thalia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,792
vCash: 500
Nah, the Kings would be worse off if all were healthy b/c everyone knows that adversity brings out the best in people. I'm going to start worrying when they get some of their injured players back... big slide.

Thalia is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:03 PM
  #7
Finkle is Einhorn
Registered User
 
Finkle is Einhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,747
vCash: 500
It is possible that the Kings might have the benefit of an 'underdog mentality' going into each game they play. Obviously I don't think that is the only reason for where they are in the standings, but I could see it playing a part. It's too hard to guess how many points they would have if they were totally healthy, but I highly doubt that they would be running away with the conference or anything.

Finkle is Einhorn is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:35 PM
  #8
Ol' Dirty Chinaman*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'm bottled fizzy wa
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
Probably run away with their division -- provided they have a goalie (and no Chechmanek ain't it).

Alison, Pallfy, Deadmarsh are all 50 goal guys, Frolov and Straka are good support.

Maybe they should hire a new trainer.

Ol' Dirty Chinaman* is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:38 PM
  #9
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
It's hard to judge where they could be if they have all their talent back. I mean, look at the Stars. They used to be perennial contenders for the Western Conference crown and now they just got back to 5th place(albeit with a bunch of teams hot on their heels). They've got a bunch of top notch talent in their lineup.
The Kings have won this year by outworking their opponents. Goaltending has been spotty even when healthy(but then, it's Cechmanek). Goals would probably be up, but would the drive and desire be there after a losing streak or two? Hard to say, but I believe they'd be at least another two spots up in the conference if not challenging for the division.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:40 PM
  #10
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose
Country: Italy
Posts: 24,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Chinaman
Probably run away with their division -- provided they have a goalie (and no Chechmanek ain't it).

Alison, Pallfy, Deadmarsh are all 50 goal guys, Frolov and Straka are good support.

Maybe they should hire a new trainer.
http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8459439.html

http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458540.html

http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8459436.html

I don't see any 50 goals out of ANY of those players, hasn't happened.

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 01:46 PM
  #11
PhillyNucksFan
Registered User
 
PhillyNucksFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,652
vCash: 500
It is hard to say as we all know that a big part of a hockey team is chemistry.

With all of those high end players coming back, it is possible to create more adversity maybe both on and off the ice.

I would say Kings are over achieving right now, and it is just simply excellent work by andy.

Nonetheless, with all players back, they should be winning the division title, and with all these current so-called "support players" in frolov and others, they are very good, over achieving baits for deadline upgrade for a longer playoff run!

Kings team would be set for the next few years and should remain competative for the top seeds in the West for years to come.. (assuming no further injuries again in future).


They are even more amazing than the Avs, who are without some of their best players as well and has kept winning and winning. (until recent slide)


PhillyNucksFan is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:12 PM
  #12
Ol' Dirty Chinaman*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'm bottled fizzy wa
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
My mistake, either way they're proven scorers if they can get a full season out of them.

Ol' Dirty Chinaman* is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:16 PM
  #13
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
They would be considered one of the favourites in the west to win the cup along with the Avs, Wings, Nucks and Sharks. All capable of taking it. The line of Ziggy Allison and Deader was the best in the NHL (as far as scroing points is concerned) prior to injury and if they were together today and our number two line was Frolov (42 points +16) Stumpel (34 points +10) and Straka (14 points -2 in 18 games) we would be very competitive up front.

Out number three line would be Armstrong (28 points +7 43 games) Luc (42 points plus 9) and Klatt (34 points +8). Our number four line would be Belanger (28 points) Avery (21 points 59 games) and Laperriere (19 points 46 games) and we have plenty of character/defencive forwards to use to fill in the mix where needed.

Of course, all of the stats would be adjusted due to ice time used by the missing players and things along those lines but, I would have to say that we would have one of the better stacked teams in the game and we have proven that we play and heart and soul game with or without our stars in the line up.

Allison Ziggy and Deader all play a heart and sould two way game so they would only be a help to our doing better.

I would say we would have 14 to 18 more points than we do now if we were healthy and would know whether or not RC was the man to take us to the finals or if we were interested in Kolzig. We would be in a strength position and better able to ***** our needs. We would be stacked as far as young capable NHL ready forwards and defencemen to deal if we needed a final piece to the puzzle.

I would have to say that if we were healthy, we would have as good a shot as most. Since we aren't, we are one of those teams who steal almost every game they play and win or tie. What you are seeing is our depth in action. What is missing is the majour pieces. Next season, we will have addressed those needs and be ready to have another go.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:17 PM
  #14
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Oh, adn they did hire a new trainer mid way through last season and he has done no better.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:17 PM
  #15
Mack
Registered User
 
Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,586
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Chinaman
Probably run away with their division -- provided they have a goalie (and no Chechmanek ain't it).

Alison, Pallfy, Deadmarsh are all 50 goal guys, Frolov and Straka are good support.

Maybe they should hire a new trainer.

Wha???? 50 goal guys?

i think they hired some new trainers last year.



this is my logic. the reason why the kings are doing so good considering thier situation is because the players they have in the lineup know they are lucky to be in the NHL. they give it their all every game. sometimes heart overpowers skill. i dont think the Kings wuold be running away with the NHL with those 7 guys back in the line up.

Mack is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:24 PM
  #16
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 18,351
vCash: 500
Did the Kings really expect Allison, Deadmarsh or Aulin to play this season? Do you really think Allison and Deadmarsh will play next season?

I think if the Kings were counting on a healthy Allison and Deadmarsh this season, knowing they were not healthy in the offseason, then someone needs a new job.


My question is, would the Kings team defense by as effective if more of their "offensive" players were in the line-up, turning the puck over more, take more chance, blowing more assignments.

triggrman is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:31 PM
  #17
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,627
vCash: 500
Well, I think they would be about 10 pts better....maybe if that. I doubt they would be that much higher in the standings, simply because all of the injury problems have brought out the best in the remaining players.....leading to an extremely hard work ethic. The problem with this question is that the Kings have loaded up with talent that is injury prone (at least lately). There is no way getting around that. When you have that type of player on your team....your going to face injuries and you have to plan for that. The Wings dealt with a lot of injury problems....they are still no. 1, the Avs dealt with tons of injuries as well....all key players.....they are still second. Asking what an injury free team could do is almost impossible, simply because injuries are such a big part of the game......For that reason, its unfortunate the position the Kings are in, but I certainly feel no pity for them. Its part of the game, and they have to deal with it in the exact same manner they are doing.

Enoch is online now  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:47 PM
  #18
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
lets have a look at those offencive players and thier lack of defence.

Last years numbers for them were as follows. Ziggy, 76 games played, 85 points, +22. Allison, 26 games played, 28 points +11. Deadmarsh, 20 games played, 17 points, +2. So, I would have to say that these players with thier solid defencive numbers would Certainly not only score significantly more points than the players in thier positions forcing thier opponents to gamble more and play worse defence in an attempt to score but also would only have done better themselves given the full year.

Your idea that they would do worse is again, wrong.

You also have to add to the fact that we have added Klatt, Avery, Stumpel and Luc to our team and all of them not only have solid scoring but very good +/-'s and that Corvo has improved significantly over last year as well as the addition of the solid Gleason on defence. We also have much much better goaltending.

So, to answer the question that if the Kings were healthy would they be one of the top teams in the game? Obviously yes, if you can't see that then you are letting your rival bias cloud your judgement.

To answer the question on whether or not we expected Allison and Deadmarsh back I can say Yes, we certainly did. We had them skating and doctors telling us they would be ready. Now, if we were in some backwater part of the world (the team that is, I live in what many would call a backwater area) then I could see how one might question the medical care given but, since the Kings use the famous Kerland and Jobe phsicians (the same that most every player on most every team use at one time or another) as thier specialists I would say that they were well informed and made the right decisions.

The truth is that everyone involved including the players believed that as well. Frustrating? You bet, but to imply that they were fools for thinking such leaves me only to ask "where did you go to medical school mate? I am certain that there are several doctors in Los Angeles that would love to hire someone with your knowledge".

punchy1 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 02:55 PM
  #19
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,627
vCash: 500
Punchy you can't deny that the estimations for these player's returns were very wrong. I don't think its unrealistic to say that a bad job...scratch that.....an extremely bad job of medical examination was performed on Allison and Deadmarsh.

Enoch is online now  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:11 PM
  #20
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
I think it is hindsight to say that now. I recall at the time reading articles posted by several of the Kings fans that went to training camp on how Deader was playing and so were Allison and that Taylour his self felt them ready or close to it. If poor medical advise were given it is the same poor advice that any doctor in the world would have given for any player on any team.

They were going to the best doctors there are in sports medicine. They were skating and doing drills. They played a little pre season in some cases, how could anyone think anything but they were ready to come back or vey close to it?

Looking back, it sure looks like they had Allison pegged wrong but, that is at this point, who knows what they will find out later. As far as we were told, they thought it possible he would come back about a month ago as he was skating and practicing and then Allison told everyone how wrong they were.

I guess, what I am saying is that if the players say they think they are close and the doctors can't find anything in testing that conclusively determines an injury and are being forced to go by diagnosing a patient based on symptoms alone that the real trouble sits with the whole thing being merely unfortunate instead of any sort of malpractice.

On your post I do agree that you can never know truly what would happen if the kings had all of thier players. I do though think that the evidence suppourts the idea that they would be significantly better in many ways. The players missing are *key* defencive players as well as key offencive players. The kind of players that Taylor have put together are gritty tough two way forwards and they could only help the team.

Chechmanek may not be the best but he is much better than Storr and Potvin were for us last year and having Huet as a back up would be brilliant. When he isn't used too often he is a dead grand goalie. My point being that, what you are seeing on the ice for the Kings today is our depth players. We would only be better if we had our top players in the line up.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:21 PM
  #21
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punchy1
lets have a look at those offencive players and thier lack of defence.

Last years numbers for them were as follows. Ziggy, 76 games played, 85 points, +22. Allison, 26 games played, 28 points +11. Deadmarsh, 20 games played, 17 points, +2. So, I would have to say that these players with thier solid defencive numbers would Certainly not only score significantly more points than the players in thier positions forcing thier opponents to gamble more and play worse defence in an attempt to score but also would only have done better themselves given the full year.

Your idea that they would do worse is again, wrong.

You also have to add to the fact that we have added Klatt, Avery, Stumpel and Luc to our team and all of them not only have solid scoring but very good +/-'s and that Corvo has improved significantly over last year as well as the addition of the solid Gleason on defence. We also have much much better goaltending.

So, to answer the question that if the Kings were healthy would they be one of the top teams in the game? Obviously yes, if you can't see that then you are letting your rival bias cloud your judgement.

To answer the question on whether or not we expected Allison and Deadmarsh back I can say Yes, we certainly did. We had them skating and doctors telling us they would be ready. Now, if we were in some backwater part of the world (the team that is, I live in what many would call a backwater area) then I could see how one might question the medical care given but, since the Kings use the famous Kerland and Jobe phsicians (the same that most every player on most every team use at one time or another) as thier specialists I would say that they were well informed and made the right decisions.

The truth is that everyone involved including the players believed that as well. Frustrating? You bet, but to imply that they were fools for thinking such leaves me only to ask "where did you go to medical school mate? I am certain that there are several doctors in Los Angeles that would love to hire someone with your knowledge".
I don't care all that much about the fate of the Kings, given I go for an Eastern team. But thought I'd respond anyhow.

More than a few people are stated that there is no real way to know what LA would be like without the big injuries. Right now, they have quite a few reasons to play with a lot of heart and they do a damn good job at it. With all the big guns in the lineup, some of those reasons aren't there and some of that heart would be gone. Given the other intangibles that we can't know, it's impossible to say if they would be much better or about the same. On paper, sure they look much better. But we all know how little that means in reality.

Allison and Deadmarsh were expected back, that I agree with. But the team knew that they would be out for at least a couple months of the regular season. And they knew this in the offseason, which gave them time to find someone to fill the void as best they could. The Kings had time to adjust their roster and strategy to compensate (as much as possible) for those two being out. So when they didn't come back when expected, LA wasn't in panic mode because they had already adjusted to playing without Allison and Deadmarsh. Disappointing I'm sure, but having already compensated for their loss made it a touch easier. And when Palffy went down, the Kings weren't shocked by his loss and already knew what they had to do to make up for it. Granted, that's not really a team management skill you want to use often but it has proven very useful for Murray and his great staff.

The "who is injured" is of course huge to any team. But the "when" is just as important in my opinion. Don't forget "how many" as well. My team (Atlanta) for example, we may not be up there in man games lost, which is a somewhat misleading stat if you ask me. But we have had maybe 5 of 25 players who have not been hurt as some point this year. Had stretches of five players injured in six games, a couple weeks later three players injured in two games, another two weeks after that three players injured in three games, four or five players on IR before these curse-like injuries started and a few single injuries scattered in between.

Other teams are afflicted as well. Just because they don't happen to reach the apparently almighty number of man-games lost as LA doesn't mean the impacts are as harsh, even moreso in some cases.

cws is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:33 PM
  #22
LuckyLUC20
Registered User
 
LuckyLUC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Somewhere in So-Cal
Country: United States
Posts: 3,496
vCash: 500
Tough to say, but it would be nice to find out.

The one thing I think people are forgetting about is Andy Murray. Murray would still get the most out of the team if they were healthy. I have no doubt about that. He's done great with what he's been given, but if you gave him more weapons (the IR list), then who knows what he would've gotten out of those guys all together at the same time? It's nice to dream.

LuckyLUC20 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:44 PM
  #23
MoS*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northfield, Minnesot
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
what would their offense be like if everyone was healthy?

Aulin - Allison - Deadmarsh
Palffy - Stumpel - Klatt
Frolov - Laperriere - Robitaille
Barney - Belanger - Straka

sure palffy - allison - deadmarsh would be great. but you could stretch that team for 4 scary lines

MoS* is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:56 PM
  #24
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwthrash
I don't care all that much about the fate of the Kings, given I go for an Eastern team. But thought I'd respond anyhow.

More than a few people are stated that there is no real way to know what LA would be like without the big injuries. Right now, they have quite a few reasons to play with a lot of heart and they do a damn good job at it. With all the big guns in the lineup, some of those reasons aren't there and some of that heart would be gone. Given the other intangibles that we can't know, it's impossible to say if they would be much better or about the same. On paper, sure they look much better. But we all know how little that means in reality.

Allison and Deadmarsh were expected back, that I agree with. But the team knew that they would be out for at least a couple months of the regular season. And they knew this in the offseason, which gave them time to find someone to fill the void as best they could. The Kings had time to adjust their roster and strategy to compensate (as much as possible) for those two being out. So when they didn't come back when expected, LA wasn't in panic mode because they had already adjusted to playing without Allison and Deadmarsh. Disappointing I'm sure, but having already compensated for their loss made it a touch easier. And when Palffy went down, the Kings weren't shocked by his loss and already knew what they had to do to make up for it. Granted, that's not really a team management skill you want to use often but it has proven very useful for Murray and his great staff.

The "who is injured" is of course huge to any team. But the "when" is just as important in my opinion. Don't forget "how many" as well. My team (Atlanta) for example, we may not be up there in man games lost, which is a somewhat misleading stat if you ask me. But we have had maybe 5 of 25 players who have not been hurt as some point this year. Had stretches of five players injured in six games, a couple weeks later three players injured in two games, another two weeks after that three players injured in three games, four or five players on IR before these curse-like injuries started and a few single injuries scattered in between.

Other teams are afflicted as well. Just because they don't happen to reach the apparently almighty number of man-games lost as LA doesn't mean the impacts are as harsh, even moreso in some cases.
Lots of your information is incorrect and your assumptions are as well. What makes you think that they knew Allison would miss a "couple of months" in the off season? They didn't know that until right before the start of the regualar season and even then, felt they had enough to get by until he came back. What makes you think that they would let down from their heart and soul game that they play without these guys in the line up just because they came back?

It isn't like Andy Murray wouldn't have coached the exact same system getting the maximum out of his players or do anything any differently if these guys were in the line up. It is how they played before these guys went down and how they play whenever we are healthy as well.

Your assumptions just don't figure up to people who watch the Kings all of the time.

it isn't like they would be adding a couple of soft scoring forwards back and that these guys don't play with guts and that the coach would do anything any differently.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
03-01-2004, 03:58 PM
  #25
willie
Registered User
 
willie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
cwthrash even moreso in some cases.
Name that case. Show me any team who has been close to impacted as LA.

We are talking about LA's four *best* forwards and two of their top three defenseman. And then throw in all those support players who keep getting injured to boot. There is just no way around, LA has easily been the most impacted team by injuries.

willie is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.