Team built for the Playoffs - what does it mean?

[Butch 19]

... but I understood the team really was built for the playoffs and the type of game Lombardi and Sutter wanted them to play in a 7-game series.

K17 posted the above quote ^^^^ in the nux game thread. I have heard this term "built for the playoffs" for several years, but I really have no deal what it means.

What do you think being built for the playoffs means? How different would a "playoff team" look rather than just a team competing for the division title / getting into the playoffs?

Click to read more...

 

[deeshamrock]

For me , it's a fluid definition. It can change with the era and the league. Right now, this league is trending youth, speed and skill. the Pens getting bonino and Haglin at the deadline 2 years ago, cemented their Cup run. NO team could match that 3rd line. Other GM's saw that and that changed what 3rd lines used to be. The big heavy game that used to be in vogue , isn't anymore. I've watched the Bruins transgressing over the last 3 of 4 years and this year they do have youth with skill and speed. THey are an example of a 'big heavy team' who had a rep for that for decades, realizing the league changed. They are faring well this year and McAvoy is a stud, along with Carlo, they have a solid twosome for the future on the blueline. I'd love to see McAvoy win the Calder but I Think Matt Barzal's to lose, if he stays healthy, he's a stud.

The Kings in 2012, for me, in that time, were a team 'built for the playoffs'.
They underachieved dramatically during the regular season and then when that puck dropped in Vancouver in April, Mike Richards showed why DL brought him to town and showed them what you need to do to win. From that point on, they never looked back. They had elite goaltending, 6 healthy defenmen for the entire 2 month run (rare!) Ridiculous center depth (Which you need to win, it's crucial) and every forward had a role, knew that role, accepted it and played it to hilt. They had an insatiable hunger to win.
They also had a ridiculous amount of leadership, which was as important as any recorded stat. I've seen teams overloaded with talent (like the Caps were for years) that rack up reg season points but when April comes, they die on the vine.
No leadership.
So for me, built for the playoffs can change according to where the NHL is. Right now , it seems to be built on speed and attacking with it. And the Bolts are in the driver's seat, if they stay healthy, I can't see anybody beating them 4 out of 7.

 

[KINGS17]

The Kings under Lombardi were designed to win 7-game series. They played a style that wore the other team down. The Kings may have been a shade slower or not as quick as their opponents in every series, but they had enough speed and quickness to maintain an aggressive forecheck. The size of the Kings and the board play wore down other team's defensemen and it showed over the course of a series, especially in 2014.

 

[Butch 19]

thanks for the explanation guys!!

The question is who's gonna be the Mike Richards hired gun to take the Kings to the next playoff level?. Hopefully Carter will fill this void when he returns,

 

[King'sPawn]

Being built for the playoffs means being able to win a war of attrition against your opponent. Ultimately, you want to wear the opponent down.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

I think it's more of a cliche than anything...and sounds great when you use it to describe a team that is actually winning in the playoffs.

I'd rather use it for individual players....Johnny Quick is built for the playoffs....he might not be the Vezina winner every year, but who else would you rather have in a 7 game series?

 

[deaderhead28]

Delete.

 

[deaderhead28]

The Kings under Lombardi were designed to win 7-game series. They played a style that wore the other team down. The Kings may have been a shade slower or not as quick as their opponents in every series, but they had enough speed and quickness to maintain an aggressive forecheck. The size of the Kings and the board play wore down other team's defensemen and it showed over the course of a series, especially in 2014.

This!
K17 explained the definition of built for the playoffs the simplest.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

The basic perception is to have a so-so regular season and you can easily flip the switch in the spring.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Playoffs have and always will be about adjustments. If you're built for the playoffs, you have the personnel to make those crucial adjustments that allow you to win a series.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Remember when we all couldn't wait to see "playoff Lucic," then proceeded to see the team get dominated every which way possible the last time they made the playoffs in 2016?

The Kings haven't won a playoff round since 2014 and have won a single playoff game since that time, missing the playoffs in 2015, getting trounced by the Sharks in a 4-1 series loss in the first round in 2016, and failing to qualify for the playoffs again in 2017.

The Kings being a team "built for playoff hockey" may have been a true statement from 2012-2014, but how can anyone say that about this team now?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I though this was simply based on an understanding that a team built to play consistently close games via checking and grinding you into paste would be more successful in the playoffs over a 7 game series vs. a single opponent than in one-off games in December and was as a response to not completely dominating regular seasons despite Cup wins. Remember being called pretenders in 2013 and 2014 and 2015 even coming off deep runs because we couldn't destroy the regular season only to go full monster in the playoffs.

Remember when we all couldn't wait to see "playoff Lucic," then proceeded to see the team get dominated every which way possible the last time they made the playoffs in 2016?

The Kings haven't won a playoff round since 2014 and have won a single playoff game since that time, missing the playoffs in 2015, getting trounced by the Sharks in a 4-1 series loss in the first round in 2016, and failing to qualify for the playoffs again in 2017.

The Kings being a team "built for playoff hockey" may have been a true statement from 2012-2014, but how can anyone say that about this team now?

I don't see that anywhere. Care to point it out?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't see that anywhere. Care to point it out?

I'm questioning anyone who even has that thought about this team in its current state. I'm not calling anyone specifically out, just calling out that "phrase" as being an urban myth.

 

[KINGS17]

Remember when we all couldn't wait to see "playoff Lucic," then proceeded to see the team get dominated every which way possible the last time they made the playoffs in 2016?

The Kings haven't won a playoff round since 2014 and have won a single playoff game since that time, missing the playoffs in 2015, getting trounced by the Sharks in a 4-1 series loss in the first round in 2016, and failing to qualify for the playoffs again in 2017.

The Kings being a team "built for playoff hockey" may have been a true statement from 2012-2014, but how can anyone say that about this team now?

I don't think this team is built for the playoffs, and I don't see anyone making that claim.

I'm questioning anyone who even has that thought about this team in its current state. I'm not calling anyone specifically out, just calling out that "phrase" as being an urban myth.

I don't think the phrase "built for the playoffs" was or is an urban myth. I think the Kings in 2012-14 were indeed built for the playoffs. Every GM in the NHL and all of the analysts knew it as well. It's why there were so many articles and discussions about higher seeded teams wanting to avoid the Kings in the first round.

 

[BigKing]

For me, it means that a team has another gear it can go to but can't play that type of hockey for 82 games because it is too physically demanding. During the Kings run, refs generally swallowed their whistles the further the series went which also played in to the Kings "heavy" style.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I think it's more of a cliche than anything...and sounds great when you use it to describe a team that is actually winning in the playoffs.

I'd rather use it for individual players....Johnny Quick is built for the playoffs....he might not be the Vezina winner every year, but who else would you rather have in a 7 game series?

I tend to agree with that. Any sort of grand pronouncement usually falls under the same umbrella.

Did Lombardi built the team any different between 12-14 and 15-17? Some of the players were different, some never got replaced, some stopped producing, but the team was built the same way.

Is it how a team is built, or how the players perform? Was Pittsburgh built to win in the playoffs last year, with all those great defensemen minus Letang? Or did Schultz just have a career year/playoff? Before last season, nobody would've ever thought that he would be a key member of a Cup winning team.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I tend to agree with that. Any sort of grand pronouncement usually falls under the same umbrella.

Did Lombardi built the team any different between 12-14 and 15-17? Some of the players were different, some never got replaced, some stopped producing, but the team was built the same way.

Is it how a team is built, or how the players perform? Was Pittsburgh built to win in the playoffs last year, with all those great defensemen minus Letang? Or did Schultz just have a career year/playoff? Before last season, nobody would've ever thought that he would be a key member of a Cup winning team.

It wasn't built any differently, and you still saw people talking about wanting the Kings to NOT make the playoffs specifically so they could avoid them in those years. Even with the team falling off the map no one wanted to play us in 7. We were engineered to hurt you.

Obviously the Sharks dismantled us but the philosophy was the same.

 

[AlphaBravo]

For me , it's a fluid definition. It can change with the era and the league. Right now, this league is trending youth, speed and skill. the Pens getting bonino and Haglin at the deadline 2 years ago, cemented their Cup run. NO team could match that 3rd line. Other GM's saw that and that changed what 3rd lines used to be. The big heavy game that used to be in vogue , isn't anymore. I've watched the Bruins transgressing over the last 3 of 4 years and this year they do have youth with skill and speed. THey are an example of a 'big heavy team' who had a rep for that for decades, realizing the league changed. They are faring well this year and McAvoy is a stud, along with Carlo, they have a solid twosome for the future on the blueline. I'd love to see McAvoy win the Calder but I Think Matt Barzal's to lose, if he stays healthy, he's a stud.

The Kings in 2012, for me, in that time, were a team 'built for the playoffs'.
They underachieved dramatically during the regular season and then when that puck dropped in Vancouver in April, Mike Richards showed why DL brought him to town and showed them what you need to do to win. From that point on, they never looked back. They had elite goaltending, 6 healthy defenmen for the entire 2 month run (rare!) Ridiculous center depth (Which you need to win, it's crucial) and every forward had a role, knew that role, accepted it and played it to hilt. They had an insatiable hunger to win.
They also had a ridiculous amount of leadership, which was as important as any recorded stat. I've seen teams overloaded with talent (like the Caps were for years) that rack up reg season points but when April comes, they die on the vine.
No leadership.
So for me, built for the playoffs can change according to where the NHL is. Right now , it seems to be built on speed and attacking with it. And the Bolts are in the driver's seat, if they stay healthy, I can't see anybody beating them 4 out of 7.

This is basically the correct definition of "built for the playoffs." It is a changing definition. It used to be big and heavy, and is now speed, skill etc. The definition basically correlates with the style of the team that most recently won the cup. I'm sure in a few years there will be a completely different definition.

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

True #1 center, true #1 d-man, true #1 goalie, lots of depth, and most importantly heart and the will to win. Of course there are the rare instances like last season when Pittsburgh won without a #1 d-man but they still had the heart and desire to win. Crosby was a beast. Before that Kopitar, Carter, Doughty, Quick, Toews, Kane, Keith, and Crawford were playing at the very highest levels possible.

Teams are so evenly matched these days that it comes down to the simplest thing in the world. Who wants it more and what are you going to do to win it? Look at Anaheim all these years. Great team but just lacked that extra something. It wasn't skill. It wasn't personnel. They lacked that little extra heart to push themselves over the top. Same with Washington all these years. Clear favorites to win the East last year but just didn't have that something extra to get by Pittsburgh.