Toggle sidebar

Any Interest in this kind of Game 1 Media Summary?

AI Kings Fan

AI Kings Fan

Registered User
Apr 23, 2025
17
6

EDIT:​

After posting this, I put all the sources in the first reply, but it seems to be under moderation.

Dissecting the Discourse: Strategies, Tactics, and Online Analysis​

The online coverage of Game 1 delved deeply into the strategic and tactical elements that contributed to the chaotic outcome, analyzing the game plans, execution, and critical special teams battle.

Kings' Game Plan & Execution​


Initial analysis praised the Kings for executing their early game plan effectively. Commentators pointed to their ability to leverage home-ice advantage 2, capitalize on early power-play opportunities with improved execution compared to previous years 2, and punish Oilers' turnovers and defensive miscues.2 LA Kings Insider noted that the team's recent scoring surge leading into the playoffs was not considered a fluke, suggesting a sustainable offensive approach.12

The narrative shifted dramatically when discussing the third-period collapse. Online debate centered on whether the Kings consciously eased up – Kings captain Anze Kopitar denied taking their "foot off the gas" 1 – or if they were simply overwhelmed by the Oilers' high-powered offense, particularly McDavid.1 A key moment identified in multiple recaps was the Kings' failure to score during their own lengthy 5-on-3 power play in the third period, seen as a missed opportunity to put the game away before the Oilers' final surge.3 Reddit commentary suggested a tactical shift where the Kings played too passively, trying to protect the lead by eating clock, which ultimately backfired.16 Kings coach Jim Hiller acknowledged the dramatic finish, stating, "We could have made it less dramatic, but credit to them... We had to do it late".1 The eventual recovery was credited to the clutch play of the Danault line 3 and the team's ability to regain composure despite the sudden momentum shift against them.3

Oilers' Approach & Execution​


The Oilers' start was widely criticized in online analysis, with some sources describing the first two periods as "flat-out horrendous".34 Their power play, usually a strength, looked "disconnected" on its first opportunity, potentially hampered by key players like McDavid and Draisaitl returning to the lineup together after a long layoff.2 Some analysis noted difficulty in converting offensive zone time into high-danger chances during 5-on-5 play early on.2

However, the coverage also heavily emphasized the team's well-documented resilience and ability to overcome adversity, traits highlighted by coach Kris Knoblauch and players.7 The comeback was driven by the star power of McDavid and Draisaitl 1, but depth scoring, like Janmark's goal, also played a role.1 Coach Knoblauch mentioned providing tactical advice and making line adjustments during the second intermission to spark the turnaround.35

Despite the comeback, significant attention was paid to Edmonton's defensive shortcomings. Costly turnovers, particularly Bouchard's leading to the 4-0 goal 2, taking too many penalties (six in total, including several in the third period) 2, and general defensive zone breakdowns 2 were frequently cited. The absence of Mattias Ekholm compounded these issues, forcing the Oilers to rely heavily on essentially four defensemen for the final two periods, with Josh Brown and Ty Emberson seeing limited ice time.2 Fan forums, particularly on Reddit, were scathing in their critique of the defensive effort and specifically Bouchard's performance.27

The Special Teams Battle​


The disparity in special teams performance was identified across numerous platforms as a crucial factor in the game's outcome.2 The Kings converted two of their five power-play opportunities (40% efficiency) 3, while the Oilers went scoreless on their two chances (0% efficiency).4

The Kings' early power-play goal by Kuzmenko was framed as vital, setting a positive tone after their power-play futility against Edmonton in the previous postseason.3 Pre-game analysis highlighted the Kings' strategic adjustments to their penalty kill, aiming for a more aggressive approach this season 10, and this seemed effective early against the Oilers' first power play.2 Conversely, the Oilers' propensity for taking penalties was seen as detrimental. The sequence where Hyman and Walman took penalties close together, leading to the Kings' 5-on-3 goal, was described as resulting from "multiple mental mistakes".2

The online analysis consistently demonstrated how team strategies, such as the Kings employing a five-forward power-play unit 8 or the Oilers pulling their goalie late 4, were intrinsically linked to individual execution. Successes like Fiala and Kuzmenko converting on the power play 3 and failures like Bouchard's critical turnover 2 became the focal points of discussion, illustrating how media and fan analysis often filters tactical decisions through the lens of key player moments.

Furthermore, while the concept of "momentum" was frequently invoked in online commentary to explain the dramatic swings 3, a closer look at the analysis reveals that these shifts were consistently attributed to tangible, concrete events. The Kings' power-play goals built their initial momentum.3 Draisaitl's late second-period goal provided a crucial, albeit small, shift back towards Edmonton.2 The Oilers' barrage of third-period goals created a massive, palpable swing.1 Finally, Danault's improbable winner instantly and completely reversed the flow yet again.1 This pattern suggests that "momentum," as discussed online, functions more as a descriptor of the game's state, driven by observable factors like goals, penalties, defensive errors, and standout individual plays, rather than an intangible force in itself.

Player Performance Through the Online Lens: Heroes and Scapegoats​

The extreme nature of Game 1 naturally led to polarized online discussions about individual player performances, quickly establishing heroes and identifying scapegoats within the fanbases and media analysis.

Kings Spotlight​


  • Phillip Danault: Was universally hailed as the game's primary hero across online platforms. His two goals, particularly the bizarre yet clutch game-winner scored with just 42 seconds remaining after the Oilers had tied the game, dominated headlines and recaps.1 His first goal, which made it 4-0, was noted as capitalizing directly on Evan Bouchard's turnover.2 He was selected as the game's first star.7
  • Adrian Kempe: Received positive commentary for a strong offensive outing, contributing one goal and two assists.3 His involvement in both the opening power-play goal and the 5-on-3 goal was highlighted.3 Kempe earned second-star honors.7
  • Andrei Kuzmenko: His performance drew significant praise, particularly for a successful Stanley Cup Playoff debut where he tallied a goal and two assists, including the game's opening power-play marker.3 LA Kings Insider specifically commended his play, noting a near-miss on a wraparound attempt.12 Post-game analysis suggested he was fitting well into the top-line role.37
  • Kevin Fiala: Was recognized for key offensive contributions, netting the crucial 5-on-3 power-play goal and adding an assist on the opening goal.3 He was named the game's third star.7
  • Quinton Byfield: Earned positive mentions for his opportunistic goal that made it 2-0, along with an assist later in the game.2 His awareness on the goal was specifically praised.3
  • Darcy Kuemper: Received mixed reviews online. While credited with the win 3, he allowed five goals on 25 shots for an.800 save percentage.3 Some analysis described his performance as "shaky" 33, and he was beaten cleanly by McDavid on the tying goal.3 Kings fan commentary on Reddit acknowledged it wasn't his best game.16 However, some Oilers fans pointed out his save percentage was identical to Skinner's, suggesting the defensive play in front of him was also a factor.27

Oilers Focus​


  • Connor McDavid: His performance was a major storyline. Despite the loss, his dominant third period, where he factored in on four goals (1 goal, 3 assists) to erase a three-goal deficit, drew widespread awe and commentary.1 He was described as "unreal" 6, and Barstool Sports published a piece titled "Connor McDavid Has To Be Getting So Tired Of This Shit," reflecting a sentiment that his individual brilliance isn't always matched by team results.6 Reddit comments marveled at his ability to take over games at will.16 Conversely, some Kings-focused commentary noted the high minutes he played and the fact the Oilers still lost in regulation.12 A potential non-call where McDavid appeared to hold Anze Kopitar's stick just before the Draisaitl goal became a point of contention, particularly among Kings fans and associated media.12
  • Leon Draisaitl: His crucial goal late in the second period was frequently mentioned as the spark for the Oilers' comeback attempt (1 goal, 1 assist total).1 It was noted this was his first game back after missing time with injury.2
  • Evan Bouchard: Became a lightning rod for online discussion due to his mixed performance. While contributing three assists 2 and logging heavy ice time (game-high 28:20) 4, his costly turnover directly led to Danault making it 4-0, a play highlighted in nearly every recap.2 Fan criticism on Reddit was particularly harsh, labeling his play as lazy, mistake-prone, and "useless".27 Coach Knoblauch publicly defended Bouchard's overall game despite the error.4 The dichotomy was captured by an NHL Trade Talk headline: "Game 1 Shows Oilers Stuck with Bouchard—For Better and Worse".6
  • Stuart Skinner: Faced intense scrutiny online following the loss. Allowing six goals on 30 shots (.800 SV%) provided the statistical basis for criticism.2 Specific goals, like Byfield's bank shot off his back 2 and Danault's fluttering game-winner 1, were frequently questioned. Fan reactions on platforms like Reddit and Sportskeeda were overwhelmingly negative, with comments ranging from "incensed" and "should never touch the ice again" 6 to "blew that game" and "f***ing sucks".27 Media analysis also noted his shaky performance.33 Some online defenders argued that poor team defense contributed significantly or pointed out that Kuemper posted the same save percentage.27 This aligns with pre-existing narratives questioning the Oilers' goaltending depth and whether the team adequately addressed the position.6
  • Corey Perry: His veteran presence was noted with a goal and an assist during the comeback.1 He also drew attention for allegedly taking the game puck after the final buzzer, sparking negative comments online.28
  • Zach Hyman: Scored the crucial 5-4 goal during the late rally.1 However, he also took the illegal check to the head penalty that contributed to the Kings' 5-on-3 advantage.2 In post-game comments, Hyman acknowledged the team wasn't sharp enough and took too many penalties.2 Like Draisaitl, this was his first game back from injury.2

The contrast between McDavid's individual brilliance and the team's ultimate failure in Game 1 fueled a significant online narrative thread. His ability to almost single-handedly drag the Oilers back into the game 1 was undeniable, yet it occurred within the context of a poor team start, defensive errors, and questionable goaltending.2 This dichotomy fed into existing discussions about the Oilers' reliance on their superstars and whether it masks underlying deficiencies in team depth or structure, as reflected in pointed headlines and fan commentary questioning if McDavid's prime years are being wasted.6

Simultaneously, the intense online focus on Stuart Skinner's performance solidified goaltending as a primary concern for the Oilers moving forward. Despite Kuemper posting an identical save percentage 15, the volume and vitriol directed at Skinner online were significantly higher.6 This disproportionate focus likely stemmed from a combination of factors: the perceived softness or poor timing of the goals allowed (especially the game-winner), pre-existing anxieties about Edmonton's goaltending situation 6, and the high stakes of playoff hockey amplifying every mistake. Regardless of the fairness of the criticism, Skinner emerged from Game 1 as a central figure in the negative online discourse surrounding the Oilers, establishing a narrative pressure point for the remainder of the series.

Whistles and Whispers: Officiating Debates Online​

As is common in high-stakes, closely contested playoff games, the officiating in Game 1 became a significant topic of discussion and debate across online platforms, particularly within fan communities.

Key Penalties Discussed​


Several specific penalty calls drew commentary. The holding the stick penalty assessed to Oilers defenseman Brett Kulak early in the first period, which led directly to the Kings' opening power-play goal, was questioned by some Oilers commentators, suggesting its severity might not have met the typically higher threshold for playoff infractions.2

Later, the sequence leading to the Kings' 5-on-3 power play in the third period garnered attention. Penalties to Zach Hyman (illegal check to head) and Jake Walman (roughing, followed shortly by a delay of game for puck over glass during the ensuing 5-on-4, and another delay of game bench minor served concurrently) were cited by Kings-focused recaps as resulting from Oilers' "mental mistakes".3 However, Oilers forward Zach Hyman, in his post-game remarks, alluded to disagreeing with some of the calls against the team.2 The review process for Walman's puck-over-the-glass penalty also drew some fan frustration regarding the lack of clear replays shown during the lengthy review.16

Conversely, the Kings' own failure to capitalize on their full two-minute 5-on-3 advantage later in the third period was noted as a significant missed opportunity that allowed the Oilers to continue their comeback push.3 Other penalties mentioned in box scores and recaps included a cross-checking minor on Drew Doughty 13 and a hooking minor on Mikey Anderson.13

Potential Missed Calls/Non-Calls​


Beyond the calls made, online discussion also focused on perceived non-calls. A recurring point of contention, particularly highlighted by Kings fans and affiliated media like LA Kings Insider and the Locked On Kings podcast, was an alleged non-call where Connor McDavid appeared to hold Anze Kopitar's stick immediately before passing to Leon Draisaitl for the Oilers' crucial first goal late in the second period.12 Some argued McDavid frequently gets away with such infractions.28 Another potential missed call mentioned in Reddit discussions was a trip on Corey Perry when the score was 5-3 Kings, which could have impacted the Oilers' comeback momentum.16

Online Sentiment​


The online sentiment regarding officiating was highly polarized, largely aligning with team allegiances. Oilers fans expressed frustration, with some suggesting the referees favored the Kings ("Refs in Kings pocket" 27) or made questionable calls.2 However, other Oilers fans dismissed these complaints as excuses for the team's own shortcomings, particularly defensive play.27

Kings fans, conversely, focused on the perceived non-calls against McDavid 12 and pointed to instances of what they considered dirty play by the Oilers, such as a post-whistle cross-check to Phillip Danault's neck that drew a penalty.16 The general nature of playoff officiating, balancing increased physicality with penalizing cheap shots, was also debated.16 One fan even noted announcer commentary suggesting the "next call was going to go against the Kings," highlighting the meta-discussion around officiating narratives.16

This intense and divided online discourse surrounding the refereeing underscores how officiating inevitably becomes a central battleground for fan narratives in tight, emotionally charged playoff contests. The focus on specific calls and non-calls that benefited the opposing team often reflects confirmation bias, where fans interpret events through the lens of their allegiance. Given the significant impact of special teams in Game 1, with the Kings scoring twice on the power play 15, the penalties leading to those advantages naturally became focal points for debate, further fueling the polarized online discussion.

The Injury Shadow: Ekholm's Absence and Roster Implications​

The status of injured players, particularly the confirmed absence of key Oilers defenseman Mattias Ekholm, cast a significant shadow over the online coverage and analysis surrounding Game 1.

Ekholm Confirmed Out​


Leading up to and following Game 1, multiple news sources, team reports, and analysis sites confirmed that Mattias Ekholm would miss the entire first-round series against the Kings.2 Ekholm had initially missed seven games with an undisclosed injury, attempted a return against San Jose just before the playoffs, but re-aggravated the ailment after only a couple of shifts.9 Coach Kris Knoblauch stated Ekholm wouldn't be returning "any time soon" and ruled him out for the first round.9

Perceived Impact​


Ekholm's absence was consistently framed online as a major blow to the Oilers' chances. Reports labeled it a "significant blow" 40, a "worrying injury blow" 43, and a "massive one for Edmonton".45 His value to the team was highlighted across multiple dimensions: his puck-moving ability, 5-on-5 point production, capability to play against opponents' top lines, physical presence, and crucial role on the penalty kill.9 His absence was directly linked in post-game analysis to the Oilers' defensive instability in Game 1, particularly the heavy reliance on just four defensemen (Nurse, Kulak, Bouchard, Walman) for significant minutes during the final two periods.2 This placed increased pressure on the remaining defenders, especially Evan Bouchard, whose performance was already under scrutiny.27 Some commentary, like that from Heavy Hockey Network, questioned the decision-making process regarding Ekholm's injury management, suggesting rushing him back might have worsened the situation.44 Hockey Royalty's series preview cited Ekholm's absence as a factor potentially tipping the scales in the Kings' favor.45

Other Roster Notes​


Beyond Ekholm, the Oilers' lineup faced some uncertainty heading into Game 1, though several players did return.41 Defenseman Jake Walman, acquired at the trade deadline, returned to the lineup after missing the end of the regular season.46 Forwards Zach Hyman, Leon Draisaitl, and Trent Frederic also returned for Game 1 after dealing with injuries.2 A notable milestone highlighted in coverage was forward Jeff Skinner playing in his first career Stanley Cup Playoff game after appearing in 1,078 regular-season games, the most in NHL history before a playoff debut.4 Looking ahead, there was mention of Evander Kane potentially being available for Game 2.37

For the Kings, the lineup featured trade deadline acquisition Andrei Kuzmenko and recent additions like Warren Foegele, along with younger players stepping into roles, including Alex Turcotte, Brandt Clarke, Sammy Helenius, and Alex Laferriere, indicating their roster adjustments throughout the season.12

The confirmation of Ekholm's unavailability for the series became an immediate and major talking point online. It provided a concrete explanation for potential defensive struggles observed in Game 1 and served as a critical factor shaping analysis and predictions for the rest of the series. His absence was instantly framed as a significant disadvantage for Edmonton, amplifying concerns about their defensive depth and ability to contain the Kings, thereby influencing the overall narrative surrounding the matchup.

Beyond the Box Score: Unique Angles and Lingering Questions​

The sheer drama and unusual nature of Game 1 generated a wealth of online discussion that extended beyond typical game analysis, touching upon historical context, fan psychology, player milestones, and peculiar game events, while also raising significant questions for the remainder of the series.

Unique Perspectives/Angles​


  • Historical Context: The fact that this was the fourth consecutive first-round meeting between the two clubs was a constant refrain in coverage.1 This year marked the first time the Kings held home-ice advantage.3 Some online commentary suggested that the Kings winning despite the near-collapse could represent a psychological turning point compared to previous years where they might have folded under similar pressure.28 The game even drew comparisons to the historic "Miracle on Manchester" from 1982, another wild 6-5 Kings playoff win over the Oilers, with commentator Daryl Evans, who scored the winner in that game, present.5
  • Fan Psychology: The extreme emotional rollercoaster experienced by fans was palpable in online reactions. Kings fans expressed disbelief and frustration during the Oilers' comeback, followed by shock and relief after Danault's winner.16 Oilers fans, despite the heartbreaking loss, found positives in the team's resilience and comeback ability, drawing parallels to their run the previous year.27 The intensity of the rivalry, particularly from the Kings' perspective after three straight series losses, was also discussed.48
  • Player Milestones: Jeff Skinner's long-awaited playoff debut after setting the record for most regular-season games played before a first playoff appearance was a notable side story.4 Andrei Kuzmenko scoring in his first career playoff game was also highlighted.3
  • Oddities: The description of Phillip Danault's game-winning goal as "ugly," "fluttering," or a "knuckle puck" became a recurring element in recaps and commentary, adding to the unusual nature of the finish.1 Additionally, an online discussion emerged alleging that Oilers forward Corey Perry took the game puck off the ice after the loss, drawing criticism.28

Lingering Questions Raised Online​


The tumultuous nature of Game 1 left online commentators and fans pondering several key questions heading into Game 2 and beyond:

  • Kings' Defensive Consistency: Can Los Angeles maintain defensive discipline and structure for a full 60 minutes against Edmonton's potent offense, or will they remain susceptible to collapses like the one seen in the third period?.1
  • Oilers' Goaltending: Will Stuart Skinner bounce back from the intense scrutiny and deliver a stable performance, or will goaltending continue to be perceived as Edmonton's Achilles' heel?.6
  • Edmonton's Defense Without Ekholm: How will the Oilers adjust their defensive strategy and pairings to compensate for Ekholm's series-long absence? Can Evan Bouchard handle the increased responsibility and pressure effectively?.2
  • Special Teams Battle: Can the Oilers find a way to neutralize the Kings' seemingly improved power play and penalty kill, or will special teams remain a significant advantage for Los Angeles?.2
  • Series Trajectory: Was the wild, high-scoring nature of Game 1 an anomaly driven by early-series jitters and specific circumstances, or is it indicative of a potentially chaotic and unpredictable series to come?.1
The sheer density of dramatic events packed into Game 1—multiple lead changes, star-driven comebacks, controversial moments, a near-historic collapse averted by a bizarre late goal—provided ample fodder for a diverse range of online discussions. This ensured the game's narrative resonated across various platforms and perspectives, extending far beyond a simple win-loss outcome and setting the stage for heightened anticipation and analysis for the rest of the series.

Conclusion​

The online media and opinion coverage surrounding Game 1 of the 2025 Stanley Cup Playoff series between the Edmonton Oilers and Los Angeles Kings reflected the contest's extraordinary and chaotic nature. The Kings' 6-5 victory, secured in the final minute after squandering a four-goal lead, immediately generated intense discussion across news reports, blogs, social media, and video platforms.1

Several dominant narratives emerged from the online discourse. The Kings' performance was viewed through a dual lens: initial dominance fueled by effective special teams and capitalizing on Oilers' mistakes, followed by a shocking third-period collapse that nearly cost them the game, only to be salvaged by Phillip Danault's improbable late winner.1 For the Oilers, the narrative centered on Connor McDavid's heroic four-point effort that single-handedly drove the comeback, juxtaposed against the team's slow start, defensive frailties, and intense scrutiny directed at goaltender Stuart Skinner and defenseman Evan Bouchard.4

The critical role of special teams, with the Kings succeeding on the power play while the Oilers faltered, was consistently highlighted as a key differentiator.2 Officiating also became a polarized topic online, with fans from both sides pointing to specific calls or non-calls as evidence of bias or incompetence.2 Furthermore, the confirmed absence of Oilers defenseman Mattias Ekholm for the entire series cast a significant pall over Edmonton's prospects in the eyes of many analysts and fans, amplifying concerns about their defensive depth.9

Ultimately, the online coverage captured the game's extreme volatility and emotional swings. It served as a dramatic opening act that immediately established key pressure points—Oilers' goaltending and defense (especially without Ekholm), Kings' ability to play a complete game, superstar reliance versus team execution, and the special teams battle—that are poised to dominate the narrative and analysis as this compelling playoff series unfolds. Game 1 provided a wealth of material for discussion, ensuring intense online engagement and speculation leading into Game 2.

EDIT Trying to add the sources at the end.

Works cited
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Faterson
God I hate AI. We are sleep walking into losing our creativity, ability to find information ourselves and abdicating self responsibility for coming to objective conclusions. It’s not like books where we have multiple sources of information, we are going to be left with all our knowledge coming from sources controlled by 3-4 people. They even advertise it as an away to cheat on your homework and missed work assignments…. Jeez. I can’t wait to rely on professionals that don’t actually need to learn much about what they are qualified in.

I’ve always been an early adopter of technology and my background is in bleeding edge IT, I’m no Luddite. This stuff needs regulation very, very quickly. I’m more worried about 1984 than I am SkyNet.

Sorry, this is pretty much a daily rant for the past 7-8 years that evolved as I expected so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus, Rick Knickleback, Fripp and 3 others
Of course! The more the merrier! Anyone not interested is free to skip. I'm typically very pressed for time, so any and all summaries are useful resources for me. Could be particularly interesting from a historical perspective – imagine if this was the first of 16 wins for the Kings in this year's playoffs. I wish we had summaries like this for the 2012 and 2014 Stanley Cup runs; would be nice to be able to reread them anytime, as memory fades.
 
Faterson said:
Of course! The more the merrier! Anyone not interested is free to skip. I'm typically very pressed for time, so any and all summaries are useful resources for me. Could be particularly interesting from a historical perspective – imagine if this was the first of 16 wins for the Kings in this year's playoffs. I wish we had summaries like this for the 2012 and 2014 Stanley Cup runs; would be nice to be able to reread them anytime, as memory fades.
Click to expand...
How is that any better than a LAKI/Athletic/other news article published after a game?
 
Chazz Reinhold said:
How is that any better than a LAKI/Athletic/other news article published after a game?
Click to expand...

No single article is as comprehensive and wide-ranging as the summary above. It's called a summary for a reason, and the genre of "executive summaries" exists for a reason. They're a big time-saver when you don't have much time but still wish to get a comprehensive overview of something. The robots are pretty good at producing these, particularly with the recently added "Deep Research" functionality where it may take a robot upwards of 15 minutes to produce an overview like this, but it's worth the wait.

The robots are error-prone, and you need to approach with constant skepticism anything they say (and then the dangers @Statto talks about aren't really there), but the same applies to human creations.

I still listen to every All the Kings Men and Kings Talk episode with Jesse, every Locked on LA Kings episode with Eddie Garcia, etc. (again, because podcasts are time-savers compared to you having to read a bunch of articles from various sources, and you can multitask while listening to them – combine them with taking your daily 6-mile walk, for example: I know no combination of activities that's sweeter!), but robot-generated summaries are very nice supplemental tools. :thumbu:
 
Faterson said:
The robots are error-prone, and you need to approach with constant skepticism anything they say (and then the dangers @Statto talks about aren't really there), but the same applies to human creations.
Click to expand...
That’s the issue though because most people tend to trust the internet as a source and will certainly trust AI, history tells us that. Most won’t be skeptical and that hurts us all. I agree with human errors in books, web pages, articles, papers but on any given subject there are many sources and it becomes relatively easy to find issues, errors, Iies etc. Soon we will have a small number of sources, maybe 3-4 AI systems which will then be open to manipulation.

That isn’t far fetched given human history and the fact we already know for fact social media has been politically modified in recent times. It’s a huge amount of power and power always corrupts.

Sorry I’m getting OT.
 
Faterson said:
No single article is as comprehensive and wide-ranging as the summary above. It's called a summary for a reason, and the genre of "executive summaries" exists for a reason. They're a big time-saver when you don't have much time but still wish to get a comprehensive overview of something. The robots are pretty good at producing these, particularly with the recently added "Deep Research" functionality where it may take a robot upwards of 15 minutes to produce an overview like this, but it's worth the wait.

The robots are error-prone, and you need to approach with constant skepticism anything they say (and then the dangers @Statto talks about aren't really there), but the same applies to human creations.

I still listen to every All the Kings Men and Kings Talk episode with Jesse, every Locked on LA Kings episode with Eddie Garcia, etc. (again, because podcasts are time-savers compared to you having to read a bunch of articles from various sources, and you can multitask while listening to them – combine them with taking your daily 6-mile walk, for example: I know no combination of activities that's sweeter!), but robot-generated summaries are very nice supplemental tools. :thumbu:
Click to expand...
There are a few things worth calling out:
- what data and information is it trained on? Was it just fed data? Or articles other writers wrote? Heck, is it based on what Reddit and HFBoard posters wrote?
- there was little analysis other than "what others said." Not much of a summary.

I just don't feel comfortable giving a thumbs up to a bot that seemed to just gauge sentiment from the online community. They could be using your thoughts, my thoughts, Oilers fans thoughts, trolls' thoughts, etc to write a report based off of some of our exact wording. It could be plagiarizing from other media folk like Jesse, Hoven, Dooley, etc.

There are valid concerns and criticosms for leaning on these AI reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VILARGOD, Rumpelstiltskin, chris kontos and 2 others
1745516055067.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: VILARGOD, Buddy The Elf, Rumpelstiltskin and 1 other person
Just repeats what its heard
Garbage in garbage out
Total absence of creativity

Our "betters" need toregulate the shit out of this fast. Should have happened a long time ago
 
Oh man, I really touched a nerve here. I originally created for my own edification, but the output was so ... comprehensive, that I thought others might be interested.

My goal was to compile a summary of the themes mentioned across all media, identify them, and state the variations on those themes. I wanted the sources to be bulleted for each theme in the report (you can see that in the template I provided) so I could click through and read them directly, but it didn't come out that way.

I omitted the game summary from the post.

I counted a grand total of 1 yes, 1 do it and I'll skip it if I don't want to read it [Edit: Opps, that was the same person], and the rest no. So ... I'll refrain.

Happy to be transparent about the background:
The tool I used is Google Deep Research with the Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental model.
The prompt:
Markdown (GitHub flavored): 
# Edmonton Oilers vs. Los Angeles Kings on April 21, 2025

You are an expert research assistant. Your task is to compile a comprehensive report on the online media and opinion coverage of the specified hockey game.



1. **Gather data** from a variety of online sources, including:

* News articles (local news sources, national news sources, nytimes.com/athletic , mayorsmanor.com, hockeyroyalty.com, nhl.com, www.dailynews.com/author/andrew-knoll/ , www.naturalstattrick.com/games.php , espn.com/nhl , prohockeyrumors.com, laxsportsnation.com/category/kings, hockeyfeed.com, sportsnet.ca/hockey, tsn.ca/nhl, thehockeywriters.com, thehockeynews.com, thefourthperiod.com)

* Blog posts

* Social media discussions (X, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, forums.hfboards.com

* YouTube channels (@NHL, @TSN_Sports, @ESPNNHL, @lakings, @lakingsinsider4112, @laroyalty, @HockeyRoyalty, @TheHockeyGuy, @thefourthperiod, @thehockeypdocast, @LockedOnKingsNHL, @sdpn, @TopShelfHockey, @daily_faceoff, @legorocks99, @nextmanupNMU, @WhatChaosShow, @donnieanddhali)





2. **Identify and analyze** the different points of view expressed in the coverage.



3. **Aggregate** these viewpoints into distinct themes.



4. **Ensure** that the themes cover the following aspects of the game:

* Analysis of game strategies

* Player performances (positive impact, negative impact, lack of significance)

* Controversial calls by referees (if consensus indicates significance)

* Injuries sustained during the game and their impact (present and future)



5. **Present** the output as a structured report, adhering to the template provided above.



6. **Organize** the report into the following structure:



* **Game Overview:** \[Final score, game summary by period, and key statistics]

* **Game Strategies:** \[Analysis of strategies employed by both teams, including any tactical adjustments made during the game.]

* **Player Performances:**[Identify players with significant positive impacts (e.g., goals, key plays), negative impacts (e.g., errors, penalties), or lack of significance.]

* **Controversial Calls:** Discuss any significant controversial referee decisions, focusing on those widely considered impactful.

* **Injuries:** Detail any injuries sustained during the game, the players involved, and their potential impact.

* **Other Key Themes:**

* **Theme 1:** \[Name of Theme]

* Description: \[Detailed description of the theme]

* Sources: \[List of sources supporting this theme, ranked by credibility, then prominence, then uniqueness of viewpoint]

* Variations: \[Subsections detailing variations within the theme, with supporting sources]

* **Theme 2:** \[Name of Theme]

* Description: \[Detailed description of the theme]

* Sources: \[List of sources supporting this theme, ranked by credibility, then prominence, then uniqueness of viewpoint]

* Variations: \[Subsections detailing variations within the theme, with supporting sources]

* \[Continue with additional themes as needed]

* **Unique Points of View:**

* **Viewpoint 1:** \[Description of the unique perspective]

* Source: \[Source expressing this unique viewpoint]

* Significance: \[Explanation of why this viewpoint is noteworthy]

* **Viewpoint 2:** \[Description of the unique perspective]

* Source: \[Source expressing this unique viewpoint]

* Significance: \[Explanation of why this viewpoint is noteworthy]

* \[Continue with additional unique viewpoints as needed]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Faterson
AI Kings Fan said:
In this case, literally true. It's specifically tasked with pattern matching themes mentioned in media and online discussions, grouping, and summarizing.


It's also seeking out and highlighting contrasting opinions. Not sure if that was your concern or not.
Click to expand...
what are you thoughts on Daniel being the real bad guy in movie "The Karate Kid"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin
King'sPawn said:
There are a few things worth calling out:
- what data and information is it trained on?
Click to expand...
I posted the tooling and prompt earlier, so hopefully that question was answered. No special training, just a prompt.

Was it just fed data? Or articles other writers wrote? Heck, is it based on what Reddit and HFBoard posters wrote?
Click to expand...

The Google Deep Research tool was pointed to what data to seek out.
Yes to articles other writers wrote.
Yes to based on Reddit and HFBoard. Well, HFBoard was a suggested source, but it doesn't look like it was used.

- there was little analysis other than "what others said." Not much of a summary.
Click to expand...

True. That's what I instructed it to do.

I just don't feel comfortable giving a thumbs up to a bot that seemed to just gauge sentiment from the online community.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That was exactly what I asked it to do. Maybe it would have been helpful for me to include the goal, tooling, and prompt in the initial post.

They could be using your thoughts, my thoughts, Oilers fans thoughts, trolls' thoughts, etc to write a report based off of some of our exact wording. It could be plagiarizing from other media folk like Jesse, Hoven, Dooley, etc.
Click to expand...

Other than the plagiarizing, that's exactly what it's doing. It's aggregating the writing, categorizing, summarizing, and reporting. Huh. I just noticed that my reply with the list of sources used is stuck in moderation. One of my main goals was to have a list of article links I could click-through to for a given opinion, right in the report. That's not what it did.

EDIT: Added the sources to the bottom of the original post.

The original report generated a game summary, which I didn't include. I figured there's great versions of that done by others.

There are valid concerns and criticosms for leaning on these AI reports.
Click to expand...

I agree with that as a general statement. Hopefully the context I've added later (my goal, the tools, the prompt) helps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom