What is considered a weak team come PO time?

[Rorschach]

But this Kings’ roster does consistently make the playoffs. Weak teams are the ones that miss.

Making the playoffs and losing in the first round is not a good thing. It's almost as bad as missing the playoffs every year. Basically you have no chance to win the Cup and you have no chance to win the draft lottery.

 

[Fatass]

Making the playoffs and losing in the first round is not a good thing. It's almost as bad as missing the playoffs every year. Basically you have no chance to win the Cup and you have no chance to win the draft lottery.

Are you suggesting the Kings should rebuild because they lost in round one?

 

[Rorschach]

Rather than look at out-of-context statistics, such as regular season numbers, we can look at roster construction of nearly all Stanley Cup winners. The playoff game has little to do with the regular season game, which is why so often the President's Cup winner doesn't win the Cup.

One key (likely the biggest key) is the first line center...
Big-two way centers of SC winners:
2006 - Rod Brind'amour (Hurricanes)
2007 - none, this is the rare case where a team has 2x 1Ds (Pronger and Niedermayer) (Ducks)
2008 - Pavel Datsyuk (Wings)
2009 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2010 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2011 - Patrice Bergeron (Bruins)
2012 - Anze Kopitar (Kings)
2013 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2014 - Anze Kopitar (Kings)
2015 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2016 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2017 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2018 - Nicklas Backstrom or Evgeni Kuznetsov (Capitals)
2019 - Ryan O'Reilly (Blues)
2020 - Steven Stamkos or Braden Point (Lightning) carried by Hedman/Vasy
2021 - Steven Stamkos or Braden Point (Lightning) carried by Hedman/Vasy
2022 - Nathan MacKinnon (Avalanche)
2023 - Jack Eichel (Golden Knights)
2024 - Alexander Barkov (Panthers)

Side note, of the above teams, only two won the President's Trophy.
2008 - Pavel Datsyuk (Wings)
2013 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)

Now you take a look at the 2025 Kings...who is their big two-way 1C? They don't have one. Anze Kopitar is nearly 40 now (like 38-ish) and Byfield is still trying to find his way as a full time center in the top 6.

So that's one example of how the Kings don't have what it takes to win and they are a creampuff matchup for any team that has one (let alone two) 1Cs. It will be the same thing if we look at the 1D situation for the Kings as well. You'll find 1D is a huge deal for Cup winners and LA doesn't have a 1D right now.

(Oiler fans shouldn't care about whether they beat the Kings or how good the opponent they beat is...bottom line, win the Cup or the season is a failure. It has nothing to do with if the Kings are "good" playoff team or not.)

 

[Rorschach]

Are you suggesting the Kings should rebuild because they lost in round one?

No. That's a big leap bro. Losing to the 2025 Oilers in round 1 is not a shame. They went to the Final last year, they went to the Final this year...that alone, losing to the Oilers is not a reason at all.

You rebuild if your roster can't win in the playoffs at all (assuming you're a typical organization and not one just trying to stay afloat) AND it's just getting worse.

Don't conflate a team that can't make it past the first round with a team that lost in the first round but can improve. Many great up-and-coming young teams will often lose in the first round of that core's first playoffs. On the other hand if you're LA and your team is getting worse via age, then it's a time to rebuild.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that just making the playoffs for a guaranteed first round exit is good thing or a worthy accomplishment of some kind.

 

[JaegerDice]

Ottawa had a winning record and a positive goal differential. The game isnt only played 5 on 5. Silly way to do a breakdown.

Actual record and goal differential should be the litmus test. Only Minnesota and Montreal had negative goal differentials and only Montreal had a losing record.

Teams that over-rely on the power play for goal differential struggle in the playoffs as the frequency or penalties called decreases while the variability of penalties called increases. Penalty calls are influenced by score and game-state, and infractions that occur later in games, later in series, and later in the playoffs are called less often (compounding effect), giving these teams less opportunity to leverage the power-play for goal differential.

Additionally, the average quality of goaltending and penalty killing faced generally increases in the playoffs vs the 82 game schedule, making it more difficult to score power-play goals when power-plays are awarded.

The bulk of the games are played 5v5, and the most successful teams are overwhelmingly the teams that control play and generate goal differential at 5v5. Sometimes you get a team like Edmonton, that is underwater in 5v5 goal differential, but these are teams that control play with poor sh% or sv% or both.

 

[JaegerDice]

Rather than look at out-of-context statistics, such as regular season numbers, we can look at roster construction of nearly all Stanley Cup winners. The playoff game has little to do with the regular season game, which is why so often the President's Cup winner doesn't win the Cup.

One key (likely the biggest key) is the first line center...
Big-two way centers of SC winners:
2006 - Rod Brind'amour (Hurricanes)
2007 - none, this is the rare case where a team has 2x 1Ds (Pronger and Niedermayer) (Ducks)
2008 - Pavel Datsyuk (Wings)
2009 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2010 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2011 - Patrice Bergeron (Bruins)
2012 - Anze Kopitar (Kings)
2013 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2014 - Anze Kopitar (Kings)
2015 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)
2016 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2017 - Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin (Penguins)
2018 - Nicklas Backstrom or Evgeni Kuznetsov (Capitals)
2019 - Ryan O'Reilly (Blues)
2020 - Steven Stamkos or Braden Point (Lightning) carried by Hedman/Vasy
2021 - Steven Stamkos or Braden Point (Lightning) carried by Hedman/Vasy
2022 - Nathan MacKinnon (Avalanche)
2023 - Jack Eichel (Golden Knights)
2024 - Alexander Barkov (Panthers)

Side note, of the above teams, only two won the President's Trophy.
2008 - Pavel Datsyuk (Wings)
2013 - Jonathan Toews (Hawks)

Now you take a look at the 2025 Kings...who is their big two-way 1C? They don't have one. Anze Kopitar is nearly 40 now (like 38-ish) and Byfield is still trying to find his way as a full time center in the top 6.

So that's one example of how the Kings don't have what it takes to win and they are a creampuff matchup for any team that has one (let alone two) 1Cs. It will be the same thing if we look at the 1D situation for the Kings as well. You'll find 1D is a huge deal for Cup winners and LA doesn't have a 1D right now.

(Oiler fans shouldn't care about whether they beat the Kings or how good the opponent they beat is...bottom line, win the Cup or the season is a failure. It has nothing to do with if the Kings are "good" playoff team or not.)

Nothing here contradicts the statistics discussed in this thread, you're simply looking at inputs rather than outputs.

 

[bert]

Teams that over-rely on the power play for goal differential struggle in the playoffs as the frequency and variability of penalties called increases. Penalty calls are influenced by score and game-state, and infractions that occur later in games, later in series, and later in the playoffs are called less often, giving these teams less opportunity to leverage the power-play for goal differential.

Additionally, the average quality of goaltending and penalty killing faced generally increases in the playoffs vs the 82 game schedule, making it more difficult to score power-play goals when power-plays are awarded.

The bulk of the games are played 5v5, and the most successful teams are overwhelmingly the teams that control play and generate goal differential at 5v5. Sometimes you get a team like Edmonton, that is underwater in 5v5 goal differential, but these are teams that control play with poor sh% or sv% or both.

But its still part of the game. So it matters. Sorry to break it to you but there are penalties in the playoffs.

 

[PistolPete]

But its still part of the game. So it matters. Sorry to break it to you but there are penalties in the playoffs.

He's addressing the difference between RS and PO and why reliance on a strong PP is a problem in the PO. He never claimed there are no penalties

 

[Rorschach]

Nothing here contradicts the statistics discussed in this thread, you're simply looking at inputs rather than outputs.

The statistics don’t play the game.

 

[647Hockey]

Teams that dont have grit, have suspect goaltending, and have a history of underachieving spectacularly flaming out the playoffs.

Some recent teams that come to mind who are usually bad in the playoffs:

- Leafs (almost always a first round loss)
- Winnipeg (almost always a first round loss)
- Carolina (Would do worse in playoffs if they didnt play Isles in 3 of past 6 playoffs. Always get smoked in conf finals. I think 1-16 in last 4 conf finals)
- Caps (excluding that one Cup run in 15+ years of being a solid reg season team with OV)
- LA (bad playoff team since their last cup. Always collapses against Oilers when they look good early on)

 

[JaegerDice]

The statistics don’t play the game.

You can line up the inputs as perfectly as you think possible and still have a team that under-performs because your vision/perception was off.

Outputs are all the really matter in the end. Nobody cares how great your players are if they don't play well or win.

 

[Rorschach]

You can line up the inputs as perfectly as you think possible and still have a team that under-performs because your vision/perception was off.

Outputs are all the really matter in the end. Nobody cares how great your players are if they don't play well or win.

Not if you compare apples to oranges.

 

[bert]

He's addressing the difference between RS and PO and why reliance on a strong PP is a problem in the PO. He never claimed there are no penalties

It was a lazy evaluation in Ottawas scenario. Their advanced metrics at 5 on 5 were good they had the worst shooting percentage in the league. In the playoffs they got the better of Toronto 5 on 5.

My point is that when evaluating a team cherry picking one stat because you want it to fit your narrative is l factually wrong. Actual goal differential is a more important factor when evaluating a team. Not simply saying they are a bad team because of their 5 on 5 goal differential then walking away with no other points. Literally nothing else is taken into account.

 

[bert]

He's addressing the difference between RS and PO and why reliance on a strong PP is a problem in the PO. He never claimed there are no penalties

It was a lazy evaluation in Ottawas scenario. Their advanced metrics at 5 on 5 were good they had the worst shooting percentage in the league. In the playoffs they got the better of Toronto 5 on 5.

My point is that when evaluating a team cherry picking one stat because you want it to fit your narrative is l factually wrong. Actual goal differential is a more important factor when evaluating a team. Not simply saying they are a bad team because of their 5 on 5 goal differential then walking away with no other points. Literally nothing else is taken into account. As a guy that likes to flex as being data driven he's not even good at it.

You can line up the inputs as perfectly as you think possible and still have a team that under-performs because your vision/perception was off.

Outputs are all the really matter in the end. Nobody cares how great your players are if they don't play well or win.

Nothing more ridiculous than an hf poster that thinks you can derive all evaluation off of metrics alone. Major coping mechanism to try and feel important. People that have been in the sport their entire life that have lived, played, been taught and breathed it have a way better handle than someone that's became a casual fan and started to look at spread sheets. Actually watching a game and understanding the neutral zone regroup or forcheck a team is doing. Helps you understand the sport. Why things are happening. Situationally why a player makes that decision. Trends and momentum shifts in a game are happening because adjustments are being made. To pretend you know better is frankly embarrassing. Then to go about it from a lazy evaluation like the one I proved right above this post just crushes ones credibility

 

[M Ace]

Toronto Maple Leafs!

 

[daver]

Toronto Maple Leafs!

I was just about to make some low hanging fruit comment about the Leafs. I guess I will get my dopamine hit elsewhere.

 

[Rorschach]

Bottom line, regular season stats go out the window in the playoffs because:
1) the two play styles are different
2) the stats are against all teams played whereas the playoffs is a best of 7 where two teams play against each other repeatedly

Therefore the game is about series matchups played in the playoff style. There are many important roles that if one team has a player correctly slotted in that role and the other team does not, the team with said player will have a great advantage.

What are the most important roles?
1) the roles where players have the most influence in the flow of the game through the ice…typically down the middle such as centers and 2-way defensemen
2) the roles that spend the most time on the ice since they will have more opportunity with more time to be more effective…for example, top centers, top defensemen and goaltenders

Everything else is meaningless.

 

[PistolPete]

Bottom line, regular season stats go out the window in the playoffs because:
1) the two play styles are different
2) the stats are against all teams played whereas the playoffs is a best of 7 where two teams play against each other repeatedly

This may intuitively make sense, but a little extra thought to it throws it into question. Especially the idea that all regular season stars are meaningless. Of that's the case, why not allow all 32 teams in the PO and just make up randing match ups? If the RS stats are meaningless then 32nd seed should have an equal shot of winning as the first seed.

Perhaps you mean to say that the PO, by their very nature, can expose teams who benefitted from the less intense RS? The Kent Nilssons/Mike Gartners of team success?

Re: match ups

One thing your line of thinking neglects is that it is indeed a short series and random chanxe is a much greater factor- including slumps which are inevitable. So what may appear to be choking is in fact mere inopportune slumping.

In some cases, inexperience may be a factor. So the stats are meaningful but a "mismatch" may be due to simply not understanding that the PO is going to require an extra gear

If stats are meaningless, then odds makers, brackets, and kind of prediction would be at best a complete crap shoot.

Therefore the game is about series matchups played in the playoff style. There are many important roles that if one team has a player correctly slotted in that role and the other team does not, the team with said player will have a great advantage.

What are the most important roles?
1) the roles where players have the most influence in the flow of the game through the ice…typically down the middle such as centers and 2-way defensemen
2) the roles that spend the most time on the ice since they will have more opportunity with more time to be more effective…for example, top centers, top defensemen and goaltenders

Everything else is meaningless.

Your argument is roles better filled = better team.

So, if team A is the higher seeded team against team B but team B has thr better fitted roles, the question that begs to be asked is if they have those roles so perfectly slotted, why did they finish with a worse record than a team they are supposedly better than?

I think you've come up with an ad hoc explanation that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Rorschach]

Your argument is roles better filled = better team.

So, if team A is the higher seeded team against team B but team B has thr better fitted roles, the question that begs to be asked is if they have those roles so perfectly slotted, why did they finish with a worse record than a team they are supposedly better than?

I think you've come up with an ad hoc explanation that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Again two things:
1) Trade Deadline
2) Young players in development that step up

2012 LA Kings - got rid of Jack Johnson; acquired Jeff Carter and brought up Slava Voynov in Jack Johnson's place. First half of season stats went out the window as the two completely revitalized the Kings offense, solidifying both the second line and the second pair.

That's just one example.

 

[Rorschach]

This may intuitively make sense, but a little extra thought to it throws it into question. Especially the idea that all regular season stars are meaningless. Of that's the case, why not allow all 32 teams in the PO and just make up randing match ups? If the RS stats are meaningless then 32nd seed should have an equal shot of winning as the first seed.

Perhaps you mean to say that the PO, by their very nature, can expose teams who benefitted from the less intense RS? The Kent Nilssons/Mike Gartners of team success?

Re: match ups

One thing your line of thinking neglects is that it is indeed a short series and random chanxe is a much greater factor- including slumps which are inevitable. So what may appear to be choking is in fact mere inopportune slumping.

In some cases, inexperience may be a factor. So the stats are meaningful but a "mismatch" may be due to simply not understanding that the PO is going to require an extra gear

If stats are meaningless, then odds makers, brackets, and kind of prediction would be at best a complete crap shoot.

I see you look at the thing with a stats mindset and this is why that mindset is completely irrelevant when your job is to take out who is in front of you in a 7 game series. The playoffs are matchups and thus don't have huge number samples, both in opportunities and population, to do stat analysis. You must perform the eye test.

If your center is someone who plays a puck possession game goes against an offensively minded center, your 2-way center might have less numbers than the offensive one but in a straight up matchup, not only can the 2-way center contain the offense of said center, it can neutralize the passing game both from the center to the wings AND the passing game from the wings to the centers.

The game is not who has the best stats, it's about who wins the game. It's not about scoring goals but who scored the most. That means you can win 6-5, you can win 1-0.

This is why centers with huge regular season numbers and awards like Joe Thornton and Auston Matthews can dominate the regular season but have no Cups or even long playoff runs to show for it. Thornton has only one Finals, a loss, while Matthews has never had a Final appearance so far.


One thing to always consider about the playoffs; the further you go, the more likely you will need to have better matchups because the teams that keep winning are the ones who have succeeded in executing the matchup game.


Lastly, the gambling argument is silly. Every experienced handicapper knows that hockey of all pro sports is by far the most difficult to handicap in terms of goals.

 

[PistolPete]

Again two things:
1) Trade Deadline
2) Young players in development that step up

2012 LA Kings - got rid of Jack Johnson; acquired Jeff Carter and brought up Slava Voynov in Jack Johnson's place. First half of season stats went out the window as the two completely revitalized the Kings offense, solidifying both the second line and the second pair.

That's just one example.

First point but rentals are a different scenario altogether.

And it doesn't make the RS moot, it just becomes a factor that needs to be accounted for when coming up with a prediction.

 

[PistolPete]

I see you look at the thing with a stats mindset and this is why that mindset is completely irrelevant when your job is to take out who is in front of you in a 7 game series. The playoffs are matchups and thus don't have huge number samples, both in opportunities and population, to do stat analysis. You must perform the eye test.

If your center is someone who plays a puck possession game goes against an offensively minded center, your 2-way center might have less numbers than the offensive one but in a straight up matchup, not only can the 2-way center contain the offense of said center, it can neutralize the passing game both from the center to the wings AND the passing game from the wings to the centers.

The game is not who has the best stats, it's about who wins the game. It's not about scoring goals but who scored the most. That means you can win 6-5, you can win 1-0.

This is why centers with huge regular season numbers and awards like Joe Thornton and Auston Matthews can dominate the regular season but have no Cups or even long playoff runs to show for it. Thornton has only one Finals, a loss, while Matthews has never had a Final appearance so far.


One thing to always consider about the playoffs; the further you go, the more likely you will need to have better matchups because the teams that keep winning are the ones who have succeeded in executing the matchup game.


Lastly, the gambling argument is silly. Every experienced handicapper knows that hockey of all pro sports is by far the most difficult to handicap in terms of goals.

Solid points.

I think the lacking is in being hyperfocused on one consideration of a much larger picture needed to assess a team, even against a particular team for a given series.

I see the value of stats but I understand they're just a tool to be used. But they can't be just tossed out the window, they need to be explained why they're mislesding if you're going to dismiss them. It requires getting to the story behind them (such as your references to Matthews and Thornton).

This is an obvious and immediate undertaking even when you're looking im the past such as the 1980 Stanley Cup PO and trying to understand how a 5th overall team won the Cup and defeated the first overall team.

This is why I love sports. You have stats but there are so many other elements that stars don't touch that you have to consider.