2014 Kings vs. 2024 Panthers

[dgibb10]

What are you smoking? As a Kings fan Quicks performance was what got them down against the Sharks to begin with. Quick was far from dominant in 2014. He was dominant in 2012 playoffs however. The most clutch things about the Kings in 2014 was timely goaltending and explosive offense. It wasn’t “masterclass” goaltending.

Kings beat juggernauts. I think in this poll the Kings would almost certainly trounce the Panthers. They had better offense and everything else was at worst even. Panthers have no where near the quality of forwards the Kings had.

The kings were 25th in the league in scoring that year lmao.

The kings were a decent team that went life and death in every playoff series.

In terms of regular season performance, they are one of the worst Cup winners in the salary cap era
In terms of playoff performance, they are one of the worst cup winners in the salary cap era.

They were sub 100 points in the regular season and a 6 seed.
They lost 10 games in their cup run (tied for the most losses of any cup champion ever with 18-19 STL) and had a sub 50% xGoals share.

Kopitar vs Barkov.


Bennett vs Brown
Lundell vs Richards
Tarasenko vs Toffoli
Erod vs Stoll
Eetu vs King

You'd probably take the 4th line of Lewis Pearson Clifford over the combo you make of Stenlund Lorentz Okpokso Cousins Lomberg

But you're left convincing yourself that Matthew Tkachuk, Verhaeghe, and Reinhart aren't lightyears ahead of Carter, Gaborik, and Williams

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The kings were 25th in the league in scoring that year lmao.

The kings were a decent team that went life and death in every playoff series.

In terms of regular season performance, they are one of the worst Cup winners in the salary cap era
In terms of playoff performance, they are one of the worst cup winners in the salary cap era.

They were sub 100 points in the regular season and a 6 seed.
They lost 10 games in their cup run (tied for the most losses of any cup champion ever with 18-19 STL) and had a sub 50% xGoals share.

Kopitar vs Barkov.


Bennett vs Brown
Lundell vs Richards
Tarasenko vs Toffoli
Erod vs Stoll
Eetu vs King

You'd probably take the 4th line of Lewis Pearson Clifford over the combo you make of Stenlund Lorentz Okpokso Cousins Lomberg

But you're left convincing yourself that Matthew Tkachuk, Verhaeghe, and Reinhart aren't lightyears ahead of Carter, Gaborik, and Williams

The Kings were 1st in G/GP in the playoffs when it actually matters.

And since you love evidence so much but refuse to admit it...here, I did your homework for you, go ahead and look down the line and see how each of the LA players outperforms his Florida counterpart. "Light Years Ahead" Verhaege would have finished behind most of LAs top six and just in front of LAs dmen. Reinhart, BEHIND.

When we're talking about championships, 57 regular season goals don't matter.

 

[dgibb10]

The Kings were 1st in G/GP in the playoffs when it actually matters.

And since you love evidence so much but refuse to admit it...here, I did your homework for you, go ahead and look down the line and see how each of the LA players outperforms his Florida counterpart. "Light Years Ahead" Verhaege would have finished behind most of LAs top six and just in front of LAs dmen. Reinhart, BEHIND.

When we're talking about championships, 57 regular season goals don't matter.

View attachment 926225View attachment 926226

The kings lost 10 games in the playoffs when it actually matters and had a sub 50% xGoals share.

The playoff argument does not help the kings.

Beating up on Anti Niemi, Cory Crawford, Hiller and John Gibson with 3 career games played for 21 games vs Shesty Vasy and Swayman.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The kings lost 10 games in the playoffs when it actually matters and had a sub 50% xGoals share.

The playoff argument does not help the kings.

Beating up on Anti Niemi, Cory Crawford, Hiller and John Gibson with 3 career games played for 21 games vs Shesty Vasy and Swayman.

Yet they had a 58% ACTUAL even strength goal share, compared to Florida's 54%.

We don't need 'predicted' performance when we have actual performance.

Your extrapolations from the regular season and 'expected' stats mean nothing in the face of real playoff results/outcomes.

 

[dgibb10]

Yet they had a 58% ACTUAL even strength goal share, compared to Florida's 54%.

We don't need 'predicted' performance when we have actual performance.

Your extrapolations from the regular season and 'expected' stats mean nothing in the face of real playoff results/outcomes.

You're right, the kings ACTUALLY lost 10 games and needed OT for 5 more of their wins.

11 reg wins, 5 ot wins, 2 ot losses, 8 reg losses

Compared to the panthers
14 reg wins, 2 OT wins, 2 OT losses, 6 reg losses.

Kings playoff offense being "better" (translation, faced significantly worse goalies)=VALID
Kings playoff defense being worse=FAKE TIME TO USE REGULAR SEASON NUMBERS

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You're right, the kings ACTUALLY lost 10 games and needed OT for 5 more of their wins.

11 reg wins, 5 ot wins, 2 ot losses, 8 reg losses

Compared to the panthers
14 reg wins, 2 OT wins, 2 OT losses, 6 reg losses.

Kings playoff offense being "better" (translation, faced significantly worse goalies)=VALID
Kings playoff defense being worse=FAKE TIME TO USE REGULAR SEASON NUMBERS

Never said the last part, but you're pretty used to making shit up to make your points in this thread

It's not about one or the other, it's the net effect--and Kings' were better.

 

[dgibb10]

Never said the last part, but you're pretty used to making shit up to make your points in this thread

It's not about one or the other, it's the net effect--and Kings' were better.

And yet they needed 7 games in every single series on the way to the playoffs, + FIVE overtime wins.

Again. No team has had a worse record on their path to the cup than the 2014 kings.

11 regulation wins, 5 ot wins, 2 ot losses, 8 regulation losses.

Among cup winners post lockout

10 losses is tied for the worst (18-19 stl.

Needing 5 OT wins is tied for 2nd most (19-20 tampa had more)

100 regular season points is 4th fewest (11-12 kings, 18-19 blues, 08-09 pens)

they are just 1 of 2 cup winners to have a sub 50% xGoals share. (14-15 chi).


They didn't win a lot in the regular season, they weren't next level analytically in the regular season, they didn't win cruise in the playoffs, they weren't even analytically winning in the playoffs, they didn't even win in regulation in the playoffs, they didn't have a MVP type talent, they didn't even have a 30 goal scorer or a PPG player.

They won the cup, which is great when compared to teams who didn't win one. But when compared to the other cup winners, the 2014 kings are INCREDIBLY underwhelming.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

They didn't win a lot in the regular season, they weren't next level analytically in the regular season, they didn't win cruise in the playoffs, they weren't even analytically winning in the playoffs, they didn't even win in regulation in the playoffs, they didn't have a MVP type talent, they didn't even have a 30 goal scorer or a PPG player.

I didn't think you could get more disingenuous but you just keep adding on to it

Guess we're done here.

 

[dgibb10]

I didn't think you could get more disingenuous but you just keep adding on to it

Guess we're done here.

Which point do you disagree with?

Nostalgia blinds you. In terms of cup winners, the 2014 kings are towards the bottom of the list.

 

[Machinehead]

The Kings teams were weird. I think they still defy full understanding.

There's definitely something to be said for turning it on in the playoffs, but the analytics tell us the Kings were playing great in the regular season too.

I don't know why they didn't score more and win more in the regular season.

I guess the same reason the Rangers have sustained a bunch of 45+ win seasons with trash analytics pretty much since then.

Either way, if you look at the Kings and the Rangers side by side since 2012, we know which approach wins Cups. Hell, the 2014 Rangers team that went to the Finals was their best in the last 15 years analytically, even though they only won an underwhelming 45 games.

I do think a large part of it is that regular season win totals are WAY more random than people would like to admit. It gets less random when you have to play the same team seven times.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Which point do you disagree with?

Nostalgia blinds you. In terms of cup winners, the 2014 kings are towards the bottom of the list.

You don't think it's slightly dishonest to say the Kings don't have any 30 goal scorers because that regular season Kopitar had ONLY 29 and Carter only 27? On that roster, Kopitar, Carter, Brown, Williams, Toffoli, Gaborik, Richards all had nearby 30 or 40 goal seasons. Kopitar had an MVP caliber year. Doughty arguably had the best 2014 of anyone in the world, with a Cup and Canadian gold while leading them in scoring.

You're complaining about nostalgia but you're leading with recency bias and cherry picking.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Kings teams were weird. I think they still defy full understanding.

There's definitely something to be said for turning it on in the playoffs, but the analytics tell us the Kings were playing great in the regular season too.

I don't know why they didn't score more and win more in the regular season.

I guess the same reason the Rangers have sustained a bunch of 45+ win seasons with trash analytics pretty much since then.

Either way, if you look at the Kings and the Rangers side by side since 2012, we know which approach wins Cups. Hell, the 2014 Rangers team that went to the Finals was their best in the last 15 years analytically, even though they only won an underwhelming 45 games.

I do think a large part of it is that regular season win totals are WAY more random than people would like to admit. It gets less random when you have to play the same team seven times.

It really was their style. And injuries and luck, like you say, long regular seasons are prone to variance, like Quick's back surgery after 2012, deadline trades, and so on. One poster is above pretending games in November tell a lot about a team in May. Really, Kings were built to play you 7 times in a row. Meet him in December and Dwight King is just a nuisance; play him 7 times in a row and he's going to wear you down on the boards before you enter Regehr's tunnel of terror. Stoll Browna and Williams are going to do a number on your stick hands and ankles. There wasn't anything pretty or secretive about it, it was just Sutterhockey and corsi'ing hard, shoot tons and go to the net tons, cycle, and finish your hits, and even their superstars were built that way, Kopitar being a contact sponge and Doughty wanting to just hit and slapshot anything that moves. They also happened to put together the 2008 NHL all start team and finished it with huge guys that are going to be a load over a series. I guess with guys like Williams and Richards and even Quick you just have to believe in the existence of immesurable intangibles, as well, and the clutch gene was just stupid high with those guys.

 

[dgibb10]

You don't think it's slightly dishonest to say the Kings don't have any 30 goal scorers because that regular season Kopitar had ONLY 29 and Carter only 27? On that roster, Kopitar, Carter, Brown, Williams, Toffoli, Gaborik, Richards all had nearby 30 or 40 goal seasons. Kopitar had an MVP caliber year. Doughty arguably had the best 2014 of anyone in the world, with a Cup and Canadian gold while leading them in scoring.

You're complaining about nostalgia but you're leading with recency bias and cherry picking.

Carter had no 30 goal seasons in either the 2 years before or 2 years after. At that point in his career no, he was not a 30 goal scorer.
Kopitar same thing. Most recent one before was in 09-10 and next one in 17-18.
Williams had his last one in 2007, I'm not calling him a 30 goal scorer.
Richards his last in 2010
Toffoli didn't have one until 2 years later (a big amount for a 21 year old vs 23 year old)
Gaborik is the closest argument, with a 40 goal year 2 years earlier in 11-12 and a good season the year after
Brown got his last in 2008

I will give leeway for a guy who did it the year before or year after. 3 years without I'm not calling you a *insert milestone* player anymore. And most of the guys in LA were a half decade removed from a 30 goal season.


Doughty frankly had one of his worst years offensively that year. he was 67th among dmen in EV scoring with just 16 despite all the minutes he played. So i'm gonna call bullshit on "best year in the world".

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yet they had a 58% ACTUAL even strength goal share, compared to Florida's 54%.

We don't need 'predicted' performance when we have actual performance.

Your extrapolations from the regular season and 'expected' stats mean nothing in the face of real playoff results/outcomes.

I don't want to butt in but isn't one of the biggest pro-Kings arguments that they were analytics darlings?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The Kings teams were weird. I think they still defy full understanding.

There's definitely something to be said for turning it on in the playoffs, but the analytics tell us the Kings were playing great in the regular season too.

I don't know why they didn't score more and win more in the regular season.

I guess the same reason the Rangers have sustained a bunch of 45+ win seasons with trash analytics pretty much since then.

Either way, if you look at the Kings and the Rangers side by side since 2012, we know which approach wins Cups. Hell, the 2014 Rangers team that went to the Finals was their best in the last 15 years analytically, even though they only won an underwhelming 45 games.

I do think a large part of it is that regular season win totals are WAY more random than people would like to admit. It gets less random when you have to play the same team seven times.

I looked at 13-14 Rangers and they were only 8th in xGF% and Corsi. They were good but not as good as it looked with the eye test.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What I don't get is that the Kings in hockey are analogous to the NY Giants in football. All 4 championship teams had underwhelming regular seasons. Yet in football because of the regular seasons the Giants are not taken all that seriously as championship teams but the LA Kings have a mythology around that the one person questioning those teams is seen as a heretic.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also there's no way there's more variance in an 82 game season that 1-4 series of 4-7 games. @Machinehead you know stats better than that.

 

[Machinehead]

Also there's no way there's more variance in an 82 game season that 1-4 series of 4-7 games. @Machinehead you know stats better than that.

That's the statistical wisdom in a vacuum, but hockey doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a different game when you have to play the same team over and over in a series.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That's the statistical wisdom in a vacuum, but hockey doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a different game when you have to play the same team over and over in a series.

Yes, but riddle me this. Let's even take for granted that somehow 7 games at most doesn't have a lot of variance, which I really don't see. A team can't be the best in the league and get a bad draw against a team they matchup poorly against but is worse overall?

 

[Machinehead]

Yes, but riddle me this. Let's even take for granted that somehow 7 games at most doesn't have a lot of variance, which I really don't see. A team can't be the best in the league and get a bad draw against a team they matchup poorly against but is worse overall?

Of course they can. Luck and variance also exists in the playoffs.

All I'm saying is that the inferior team is way more likely to win a game than win a series.

You can outplay your opponents every night and it's still pretty much a coin flip whether you win each game. A series is much less of a coin flip, assuming that one team is better than the other and consistently beats in the other in measurable ways, like the Kings did to pretty much everyone at the time.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Of course they can. Luck and variance also exists in the playoffs.

All I'm saying is that the inferior team is way more likely to win a game than win a series.

You can outplay your opponents every night and it's still pretty much a coin flip whether you win each game. A series is much less of a coin flip, assuming that one team is better than the other and consistently beats in the other in measurable ways, like the Kings did to pretty much everyone at the time.

I really don't see it as a coin flip in the regular season. If it were you wouldn't get the same teams being good and bad every year. I know you're not literally calling it a coin flip but you get my point.