Around the league part 2

[Herby]

There is plenty of luck involved, every team who has won a cup has benefitted from lucky things that played a big part. Even something as simple as Cryin Lyin Ryan Smyth demanding a trade to Edmonton opened the door for the Kings to have cap flexibility to address some holes on the team. The Kings possibly miss the playoffs outright in 2012 if Smyth plays out his contract, since trading for Carter's cap hit would not have been possible without other moves.

The problem for Detroit is, the picks before Yzerman became GM have turned out to be really bad and it has greatly slowed down their rebuild. Even with some of his picks being very good (Seider and Raymond) and trending that way (Edvinson) it's not enough to make up for it. Zadina over Hughes (who most fans wanted) was a total disaster. And although Rasmussen is looking like he may be a valuable third liner, when you look at the guys taken after him, it was also a mistake, where they left a lot on the table (Suzuki, Necas, Norris)

Detroit's 1st round picks in the years between Larkin and Seider

2015 - Yefgeni Svechnikov (19)
2016 - Dennis Choloski (20)
2017 - Michael Rasmussen (9)
2018 - Filip Zadina (6)

That is just gross.

Hughes alone would make a huge difference on where the franchise is now and in the future. Do the Kings ever win anything if Taylor leaves Marc Staal or Martin Hanzal for the new regime instead of Kopitar? I know there are butterfly effect things to that question, but the answer is very likely, no.

I think it's @BigKing who always mentions how you can have 1 bad Top 1-10 pick (Hickey) and your rebuild can still thrive if you make the right picks in other places (Doughty, Kopitar, Quick). But it's really tough to have a successful rebuild in a relatively timely manner if you miss on back to back very high picks. It's why this season with Byfield is one of the most important individual seasons by a player in Kings history. I think we can all agree that Turcotte returning any kind of ROI that would warrant his draft slot is likely out the window, so if Byfield struggles again it's very likely the Kings are looking at a situation similar to Detroit (only with 2&5 picks instead of 6&9).

 

[BigKing]

There is plenty of luck involved, every team who has won a cup has benefitted from lucky things that played a big part. Even something as simple as Cryin Lyin Ryan Smyth demanding a trade to Edmonton opened the door for the Kings to have cap flexibility to address some holes on the team. The Kings possibly miss the playoffs outright in 2012 if Smyth plays out his contract, since trading for Carter's cap hit would not have been possible without other moves.

The problem for Detroit is, the picks before Yzerman became GM have turned out to be really bad and it has greatly slowed down their rebuild. Even with some of his picks being very good (Seider and Raymond) and trending that way (Edvinson) it's not enough to make up for it. Zadina over Hughes (who most fans wanted) was a total disaster. And although Rasmussen is looking like he may be a valuable third liner, when you look at the guys taken after him, it was also a mistake, where they left a lot on the table (Suzuki, Necas, Norris)

Hughes alone would make a huge difference on where the franchise is now and in the future. Do the Kings ever win anything if Taylor leaves Marc Staal or Martin Hanzal for the new regime instead of Kopitar? I know there are butterfly effect things to that question, but the answer is very likely, no.

I think it's @BigKing who always mentions how you can have 1 bad Top 1-10 pick (Hickey) and your rebuild can still thrive if you make the right picks in other places (Doughty, Kopitar, Quick). But it's really tough to have a successful rebuild in a relatively timely manner if you miss on back to back very high picks. It's why this season with Byfield is one of the most important individual seasons by a player in Kings history. If Byfield struggles again it's very likely the Kings are looking at a situation similar to Detroit (only with 2&5 picks instead of 6&9)

You rang?

You can miss on high picks when you have a future HOF'er in Kopitar already in the prospect pool and then you draft another HHOF'er in Doughty. It then helps to do pretty well in the later rounds and to also trade some of those accumulated picks and prospects for legit talent.

Blake has done the missing on high picks and trading part of it but doesn't have his Kopitar or Doughty, even though he still has the actual Kopitar and Doughty. He needs Clarke to be his home run Doughty pick and for Byfield to at least be equal to Brayden Schenn: either as the centerpiece of a trade or the 20 goal/50 point version of Schenn ASAP.

Brayden Schenn is a long ways away from Kopitar's level but jumping all over PLD tells you and me that expectations for Byfield are probably at Schenn levels more so than draft night expectations. They are planning on three more years of Kopitar so you've got AK/PLD/PD down the middle for a good while now.

Byfield can't be a total bust or this whole thing is a wrap but Blake is already planning on him not being "the guy" for a couple of seasons: if ever. I agree that this season is very important for Byfield but I feel this whole thing now hinges on Clarke. He is the only prospect that looks like a potential transcendent talent at this point. If Clarke is one of these 70 point defensemen that isn't a liability, Byfield doesn't have to be Malkin 2.0 or whatever the hope was when he was drafted. Clarke also seems to be one of the few prospects that has the "I'm a f***ing monster" attitude that this team desperately needs.

 

[Steve Zissou]

'Helmet' - check!
'Gloves' - check!
'Pants' - check!
'Stick' - check!

 

[Statto]

Wins still factor in for voters in the Vezina for better or worse.

Yep. 39 vs 35.

It demonstrates the lack of understanding/nuance in NHL awards, same with the Norris going to the highest scoring D most years even if the winner isn’t the guy you’d pick to anchor a cup winning blue line.

That year Quick was the best goalie on the planet and on performances it wasn’t debatable. He was money that year and Hank was convincingly outplayed in the SCF, even if he himself played well - I know the award is based on the regular season but Quick played that well for the whole year.

It’s the same with the EK vs Doughty debate, even some Kings fans will say EK was better, for a 3-4 year stretch DD is the guy we’d all want in the lineup if you want the Stanley cup. On that basis who’s the better player? The voted awards in most cases have become pretty meaningless for me over the last 20 odd years.

 

[johnjm22]

Trying to analyze how much of a GM's success is luck vs skill/hard work will make your head hurt. I always find myself coming back to the 50/50 ratio.

But I think it's pretty clear most fans and media underweight the luck aspect.

I mean for Christ's sake, franchise's success is hugely reliant on a draft where you're selecting 17 and 18 year old kids from around the world hoping turn into something for you. Good luck.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Trying to analyze how much of a GM's success is luck vs skill/hard work will make your head hurt. I always find myself coming back to the 50/50 ratio.

But I think it's pretty clear most fans and media underweight the luck aspect.

I mean for Christ's sake, franchise's success is hugely reliant on a draft where you're selecting 17 and 18 year old kids from around the world hoping turn into something for you. Good luck.

maybe but you're also competing against 32 other GMS and their resources, if you're a D student for 5 years, there's more to it than 'bad luck.'

I don't know I generally agree with your idea that we may overlook how much is out of one human's control but I also think there's waayyyyy too much of an alibi built into the premise. Sure not every competitor has the same resources, but your literal job is to organize a successful team--no employee I hire will ever get 5 f*** up years and get a chance to say "oh yeah i just called all the wrong people, bad luck." There is some responsibility to pick 1. close enough to the right people; 2. develop and motivate the right people; 3. put the right people in charge, and so on. If someone just has 'bad luck' at all of that, then fine, I'm firing that person for just being a bad rabbit's foot but it's much more likely that there's something faulty in the chain of events/command because you would think that by blind dumb GOOD luck that something would balance out.

Bad luck is your entire defense getting injured in the first round, not making the wrong lottery picks for a decade.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Trying to analyze how much of a GM's success is luck vs skill/hard work will make your head hurt. I always find myself coming back to the 50/50 ratio.

But I think it's pretty clear most fans and media underweight the luck aspect.

I mean for Christ's sake, franchise's success is hugely reliant on a draft where you're selecting 17 and 18 year old kids from around the world hoping turn into something for you. Good luck.

Pretty much. Like coaches, a good GM is going to reduce the risk of bad luck, but can't fully eliminate it.

 

[Statto]

Trying to analyze how much of a GM's success is luck vs skill/hard work will make your head hurt. I always find myself coming back to the 50/50 ratio.

But I think it's pretty clear most fans and media underweight the luck aspect.

I mean for Christ's sake, franchise's success is hugely reliant on a draft where you're selecting 17 and 18 year old kids from around the world hoping turn into something for you. Good luck.

It’s really about what you do with good luck (opportunity) and how you handle bad luck (adversity). It’s those sliding door moments that make all the difference.

 

[King'sPawn]

maybe but you're also competing against 32 other GMS and their resources, if you're a D student for 5 years, there's more to it than 'bad luck.'

I don't know I generally agree with your idea that we may overlook how much is out of one human's control but I also think there's waayyyyy too much of an alibi built into the premise. Sure not every competitor has the same resources, but your literal job is to organize a successful team--no employee I hire will ever get 5 f*** up years and get a chance to say "oh yeah i just called all the wrong people, bad luck." There is some responsibility to pick 1. close enough to the right people; 2. develop and motivate the right people; 3. put the right people in charge, and so on. If someone just has 'bad luck' at all of that, then fine, I'm firing that person for just being a bad rabbit's foot but it's much more likely that there's something faulty in the chain of events/command because you would think that by blind dumb GOOD luck that something would balance out.

Bad luck is your entire defense getting injured in the first round, not making the wrong lottery picks for a decade.

By and large I think fans are actually more apologetic and forgiving of their current GM's luck (not specifically Kings fans).

If anything, I'm reading plenty about reducing Lombardi's accomplishments because he was "lucky." Yes, he was, but unless (general) you are arguing that any GM would have had the same results or better, it's just reductionist revisionism devoid of any critical thought.

But if someone IS arguing that any GM can achieve the same results or better, it makes the whole position pointless as it's just a position of circumstance.

 

[johnjm22]

maybe but you're also competing against 32 other GMS and their resources, if you're a D student for 5 years, there's more to it than 'bad luck.'

I don't know I generally agree with your idea that we may overlook how much is out of one human's control but I also think there's waayyyyy too much of an alibi built into the premise. Sure not every competitor has the same resources, but your literal job is to organize a successful team--no employee I hire will ever get 5 f*** up years and get a chance to say "oh yeah i just called all the wrong people, bad luck." There is some responsibility to pick 1. close enough to the right people; 2. develop and motivate the right people; 3. put the right people in charge, and so on. If someone just has 'bad luck' at all of that, then fine, I'm firing that person for just being a bad rabbit's foot but it's much more likely that there's something faulty in the chain of events/command because you would think that by blind dumb GOOD luck that something would balance out.

Bad luck is your entire defense getting injured in the first round, not making the wrong lottery picks for a decade.

I don't think the student analogy is applicable because you much more so have direct control over your grades. In the salary cap era, I don't think resources have that much impact either.

Look at arguably the most pivotal moment in modern King's franchise history: 2005 NHL draft. LA selects Anze Kopitar at 11th overall.

First of all, the entire draft was determined by lottery. God knows where our pick could have ended up. On top of that, if any one of CAR, MIN, MTL, CLB, CHI, SJ OTT, VAN selects Kopitar, LA likely never wins a Stanley Cup. Kings have no control over him being there at 11 or even being able to draft that high in the first place.

On the other hand, DT actually made the selection. So you have to give him credit there. So looking at that situation, I think it's 50% luck at least that LA got Kopitar.

Such an important moment for the trajectory of the franchise and it was based mostly on chance.

 

[jgs]

Yep.

Stevie is a good GM. Every GM needs a little luck, Heck we all need a little luck in being good at what we do. Success as a GM depends on many different factors, like talent level, cap restraints, average age of players and most of the time it takes time to turn a team into a contender. The telling factor is the choices that the GM makes. Like who he trades for and how he drafts, are they the right choices or not, how he evaluates the worth of players and how he manages the cap. that determine how good a GM is,

 

[bland]

There are extremely few circumstances one can attribute to luck. Its a generic abbreviation used to eschew critical thinking and ignore responsibilities of possibility.

You make your own bed, and your decisions will always have variable outcomes. Luck implies things happening out of your control, but any close inspection will show how you created the situations in which those variables took root.

It wasn't luck that the Kings drafted Kopitar. It wasn't luck that saw Lombardi fashion a winning organization or luck that saw it fall apart.

A good GM doesn't overplan or restrict their potential maneuverability. They strive to create an enviornment in which they can contend while building a bank of capital on hand to use when the opportunities align to make the right moves at the right time. It requires patience and assertiveness - while knowing which is called for at the given situation.

That is my biggest argument against Blake - he is collecting players without building a team. They might have more talent now than any time in the last 9 years, but they aren't all pulling in the same direction. Blake’s model is foolish and naive, and there has never been any real evidence to suggest that he knows what he is doing.

 

[jgs]

There are extremely few circumstances one can attribute to luck. Its a generic abbreviation used to eschew critical thinking and ignore responsibilities of possibility.

You make your own bed, and your decisions will always have variable outcomes. Luck implies things happening out of your control, but any close inspection will show how you created the situations in which those variables took root.

It wasn't luck that the Kings drafted Kopitar. It wasn't luck that saw Lombardi fashion a winning organization or luck that saw it fall apart.

A good GM doesn't overplan or restrict their potential maneuverability. They strive to create an enviornment in which they can contend while building a bank of capital on hand to use when the opportunities align to make the right moves at the right time. It requires patience and assertiveness - while knowing which is called for at the given situation.

That is my biggest argument against Blake - he is collecting players without building a team. They might have more talent now than any time in the last 9 years, but they aren't all pulling in the same direction. Blake’s model is foolish and naive, and there has never been any real evidence to suggest that he knows what he is doing.

What I don't like is that the Kings have not developed their prospect pool fast enough and more of them have look like busts.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't think the student analogy is applicable because you much more so have direct control over your grades. In the salary cap era, I don't think resources have that much impact either.

Look at arguably the most pivotal moment in modern King's franchise history: 2005 NHL draft. LA selects Anze Kopitar at 11th overall.

First of all, the entire draft was determined by lottery. God knows where our pick could have ended up. On top of that, if any one of CAR, MIN, MTL, CLB, CHI, SJ OTT, VAN selects Kopitar, LA likely never wins a Stanley Cup. Kings have no control over him being there at 11 or even being able to draft that high in the first place.

On the other hand, DT actually made the selection. So you have to give him credit there. So looking at that situation, I think it's 50% luck at least that LA got Kopitar.

Such an important moment for the trajectory of the franchise and it was based mostly on chance.

Why hire a GM at all then? Why not just input data into chat GPT?

While we're at it, replace the coaching staff and everyone else with AI for maximum efficiency using formulas based on analytics.

There's nothing we can actually do to influence outcomes anyway, right?

 

[johnjm22]

Why hire a GM at all then? Why not just input data into chat GPT?

While we're at it, replace the coaching staff and everyone else with AI for maximum efficiency using formulas based on analytics.

There's nothing we can actually do to influence outcomes anyway, right?

Because results aren't all luck?

I theorized 50/50.

If a GM has 50% influence, that's pretty huge. So having a good GM would be important.

 

[Sparky206]

Why all the negativity. We were a good team last year and we've improved again in the off season. Now we've got the best 1-2-3 center punch in the league with a top 9 that teams won't be able to matchup against.

I know it's a North American forum but man you guys love a good whinge, it seems the better we get the more the complaining ramps up.

 

[Schrute farms]

Why all the negativity. We were a good team last year and we've improved again in the off season. Now we've got the best 1-2-3 center punch in the league with a top 9 that teams won't be able to matchup against.

I know it's a North American forum but man you guys love a good whinge, it seems the better we get the more the complaining ramps up.

I'm not sure we have "The Best" 1-2-3 center lineup in the league. But even if i give you that, it's only one (big) part of a hockey team. But now do other areas:

Goalie -- we arguably have The Worst goalie situation in the league. Certainly bottom 5-10. Not what you want from a team that is contending.

Bottom line: again, bottom half of the league there.

Size/toughness: arguably the weakest team in the league.

Defense: lack of size/toughness, lots of inexperience, etc.

Coaching: lol...i'll leave this one alone.

Botton line is that while the team is good and is solidly in the playoff race (much better than 3-5 years ago), we could be soooooo much better and in a stronger organizational position if only some easy/basic moves were made (or preventable errors not made) by our GM the prior couple years.

 

[bland]

Why all the negativity. We were a good team last year and we've improved again in the off season. Now we've got the best 1-2-3 center punch in the league with a top 9 that teams won't be able to matchup against.

I know it's a North American forum but man you guys love a good whinge, it seems the better we get the more the complaining ramps up.

Best center punch in the league? Its third best in the division.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I don't think the student analogy is applicable because you much more so have direct control over your grades. In the salary cap era, I don't think resources have that much impact either.

Look at arguably the most pivotal moment in modern King's franchise history: 2005 NHL draft. LA selects Anze Kopitar at 11th overall.

First of all, the entire draft was determined by lottery. God knows where our pick could have ended up. On top of that, if any one of CAR, MIN, MTL, CLB, CHI, SJ OTT, VAN selects Kopitar, LA likely never wins a Stanley Cup. Kings have no control over him being there at 11 or even being able to draft that high in the first place.

On the other hand, DT actually made the selection. So you have to give him credit there. So looking at that situation, I think it's 50% luck at least that LA got Kopitar.

Such an important moment for the trajectory of the franchise and it was based mostly on chance.

“Mostly on chance”

“50% luck”

Pick one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

An NHL team owner spoke to our class when I was in grad school, and funny enough, he mentioned luck being a big factor in having success, like what happens at the draft lottery and at the draft. In 2004, the Capitals wound up winning the draft lottery, bumping Chicago from a top two pick to #3. Ovechkin and Malkin go #1 and #2, and the Hawks wind up with Cam Barker at #3. I guess luck turned in there favor years later when they wound up winning the Patrick Kane sweepstakes, and did it again this year with Connor Bedard.

The Kings winding up with the #2 pick in 2008 is fortunate, they could have fallen back further that year. Certain signings or trades falling apart and working in their favor is based on luck. What happens if they sign Chara or Hossa or Briere or Gomez, or land Kovalchuk in 2010?

This team has also had plenty of shitty luck in the past, particularly with draft outcomes and injuries.

 

[johnjm22]

“Mostly on chance”

“50% luck”

Pick one.

That post was about a specific event.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

That post was about a specific event.

So overall, you think luck/skill is a 50/50 split. But with the Kopitar pick in particular, it was 70/30 luck?

I can definitely agree that a player like Kopitar falling to #11 is historically unusual and therefore “lucky.”

 

[yankeeking]

Why hire a GM at all then? Why not just input data into chat GPT?

While we're at it, replace the coaching staff and everyone else with AI for maximum efficiency using formulas based on analytics.

There's nothing we can actually do to influence outcomes anyway, right?

i am living thru this scenario right now, the corporation I work for has determined that AI is better suited to assigning/dispatching calls and leads than people are and is adamant against allowing us to adjust, so what we have is a non feeling numbers only decision maker pissing off clients and technicians all summer a real freaking headache but with that said it still hasn't done anything as dumb as going 1-3-1 while playing the best offensive machine in the league and up 3-0

 

[Bandit]

i am living thru this scenario right now, the corporation I work for has determined that AI is better suited to assigning/dispatching calls and leads than people are and is adamant against allowing us to adjust, so what we have is a non feeling numbers only decision maker pissing off clients and technicians all summer a real freaking headache but with that said it still hasn't done anything as dumb as going 1-3-1 while playing the best offensive machine in the league and up 3-0

LMAO. Funny because it's true. Nothing is THAT dumb.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That post was about a specific event.

So overall, you think luck/skill is a 50/50 split. But with the Kopitar pick in particular, it was 70/30 luck?

I can definitely agree that a player like Kopitar falling to #11 is historically unusual and therefore “lucky.”

Yeah I mean maybe I'm being too harsh here and maybe it's just semantics, but I don't like the way this is presented because it has all the feel of the "Well what's he SUPPOSED to do?" that sentiments that actually have 3-4 easier, clearer answers at the least.

if the vast majority of the kids bust, that's not just bad luck.
If you get bent over for an LHD in a trade at the deadline, that's not just bad luck, that's insanely poor planning.
If you have to go out and rebuild the goaltending pipeline in one summer and end up with two journeymen in their 30s on a team with 2nd round aspirations, that's not just bad luck.

There are plenty of butterfly effect things here that aren't just circumstance, they're the end result of a lack of foresight and contingencies.