What's Broken (part 1)
by Quisp on May 2, 2011 12:51 PM PDT
in Backseat Driving
Email
Print
After the Kings' loss in game four a couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post entitled "Is this is pattern." In that post, I covered the Kings' recent history of peaks followed immediately by collapse. I won't rehash that now, except to say that I identified several key moments over the last two seasons, in each of which the Kings collapsed in the face of success.
- 2010 Playoffs against Vancouver, with a lead going into the third period of game four, and a chance to go up 3-1 in the series.
- 2010-11 first fifteen games: the Kings are 12-3, #1 in the league.
- December 27, 2010: Kings dominate the Sharks 4-0 (the game with the amazing Kopitar to Brown aerial pass).
- Trade deadline day.
- 2011 Playoffs against San Jose: up 4-0 in game three with a chance to go up 2-1 in the series.
The post linked above (and below) goes into excruciating detail. Here's part of my conclusion:
Glass Half Empty Pt 2: Is this a pattern? - Jewels From The Crown
but it's hard not to notice that virtually every time the Kings do something reasonably big, they lose focus and fall apart. By "reasonably big" I don't mean "a win" or "a good record." But if it's big enough to make them Big National News -- like being number one in the league, or clinching the playoffs, or making the biggest splash on deadline day, or pushing a cup favorite to the brink -- they suddenly stop doing what they were doing to get themselves to those various lofty heights, and play more or less like kids playing street hockey each with his own Stanley Cup Final play-by-play running in his head.
[...] So if the issue is losing focus, who is to blame for that?
The stock answer: the Kings are young. They're making youthful mistakes. Is that it? Handzus, Stoll, Smyth, Williams, Greene, Scuderi, Mitchell, Ponikarovsky, Penner, Richardson, Parse, Westgarth, Brown, Drewiske and Harrold are all 26 or older. That's 15 guys. So, no. Youth is not the problem.
Besides, we're not talking about one incident.
What happened in the Vancouver series, I was more than willing to write off as a learning experience. The several versions of "we've arrived/not-so-fast" that transpired over the course of this season: at best, I can consider those laboratories for learning, banking the wisdom they will then apply when they get to the playoffs again. But that's where we are now, and the Kings are somehow having to learn the same lesson yet again.
Which suggests to me that the lesson simply isn't sinking in.
Sometimes a team comes into a playoff series and they're just dominated from start to finish. Then you can say the team was simply over-matched; they didn't have the skill to compete with an overwhelmingly better team. But I really don't think you can say that when the teams are separated by one point in the standings (Vancouver and LA last year) or seven points (the Kings and Sharks this year). You can't say the Canucks or Sharks were/are undeniably and far-and-away the better team when in both cases there were multiple overtime games and in both cases the supposedly inferior team was in a position to win the series. [...] In both series the Kings were in a position to close and didn't close. And closing, in both cases, meant doing the very thing they had been doing all season, the very thing that was their calling card: playing solid defense.
[...] Doing that doesn't require superhuman ability or in fact superhuman anything, except possibly this: focus.
Coaches can't play the game for the players. We hear that all the time. But they can guide the focus of their players. In fact, that's all they can do. That, in a nutshell, is their job.
That was me after game four. Here's Lombardi after the series was over:
Lombardi, on success and disappointments " LA Kings Insider
Question: When you look back at the season, where did you see progress and where did you expect to see progress that maybe you didn’t get?
LOMBARDI: "[...] I don’t like the fact that we put ourselves in situations where we had to face adversity, but I liked the way we dealt with it. The way they responded after putting themselves in that position in late January, we went through a stretch there for a month and a half where we only lost four games, and every one of those games was critical. The way they found a way to win, that, i think, is progress. [...] But on the other hand, [...] it was almost like we had trouble dealing with success. I put success in quotes.
We had the 12-3 (start), and there’s such a thing of feeling good about yourself in the wrong way.
Then we had another stretch where we were really good, and it looked like we had learned from the first one, then we fell off and put ourselves to where we had to fight our way back and play at an incredibly high winning percentage to get in (to the playoffs).
Then you almost look at the playoffs too, a 4-0 lead (in Game 3). [...] Again, I put this in quotes, but it’s a version of `success,’ and dealing with it.
[...O]n the one hand, I liked the fact that we responded to putting ourselves in a predicament, and not giving up, and on the other hand, we have to learn from this and not get in that situation in the first place. So you lose a 4-0 lead, and then you find a way to go back up there and win Game 5 and take them to overtime. Even in Game 6 there, the first 30 minutes, they’re all over us, and the last 30 minutes are ours. So they’ve shown they can respond to it, but the point is that to be a really good team is to learn to be professional.
If you look at the good teams, you have to define the problem and then recognize the signs that this is not going to seep in again. That’s the responsibility of your captains [...], that when you get off to 12-3 and you start seeing that slide, knock it off. Detroit, when they’re in a slide, they’ve be .500, but you don’t go 0-8 or 0-9 or whatever.
[...] [O]ne thing that’s troubling[:] [...] all of a sudden, the playoffs start and we were very uncharacteristic in what is supposed to be a staple of our game. I told you this three years ago, that we’re going to build this from the back out. Defensively, it’s the first step. We were fourth in the league in goals against, and we accomplished that. Then we got in the playoffs and we scored goals and all of a sudden we’re giving them up. So that’s something we’ve got to look at closely.
[...] The staple of our game, where was that? What was going on there?"
I singled out the coaches without mentioning the captains. Lombardi singled out the captains without mentioning the coaches. I don't know about him, but I think it's both. I put the emphasis on the coach because he not only has more authority and experience, but he has the power to change the line-up, the lines, ice-time, strategy -- while the captains have to play the hand they're dealt.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that the responsibility is on both the coaches and players to fix things and avoid the slumps and bad play or at least cut them off before they get really bad. I’d probably lean more towards Lombardi’s side that it is up to the players mainly because the coach can talk about things and mix up strategy and whatever like you said, but ultimately it comes down to the players on the ice doing what the coach says and executing that strategy.
The Kings showed that when they played their defensively sound system that they could beat the Sharks even without Kopitar. They got into trouble when they started to go up tempo and take chances and I think that is on the players because Murray consistently said we need to stay with our system.
I’d even argue that the coach almost has less power than the players because he isn’t going to sit Doughty or Johnson since they are his best players and it would be stupid to do so. So he has to hope that they figure things out and follow the strategy and system that he puts in place. Ultimately it comes down to not changing up the system or lines or anything when things start to go bad, but rather just to refocus, trust the system and your teammates, and put in all of your effort to doing your role on the team as well as you can and not trying to fill others’ roles as well.
I put the emphasis on the coach because he not only has more authority and experience, but he has the power to change the line-up, the lines, ice-time, strategy — while the captains have to play the hand they’re dealt.
The coaches also have to play the hand they’re dealt, because the GM shapes the 23-man roster, not them. And I think that’s why Dean emphasized the players. He brought them into the organization, he sees them as long-term investments, and whether or not they get the job done will ultimately reflect on him. Coaches are a lot easier to hire and fire than players, and in a sense they’re just guys that the GM brings in to baby-sit the players. If things don’t work out, bringing in new coaches will only work so many times before people start to question your judgment.
"Prepare your bladder for imminent release!" — Invader Zim
I think there is a missing middle ground to this analysis. I agree that Vancouver was not “far and away” better than LA last year, nor was San Jose “far and away better” than LA this year.
But that doesn’t change the biggest underlying reason why LA lost against San Jose in the playoffs… they simply were not as talented. It was close, as you would expect when you pit two teams who were only separated over 82 games by 3 or 4 wins. But the fact that LA took San Jose to 3 OT games in the end is more indicative of the short and random nature of a 7 game series rather than how close the teams were, similar to how the Sharks beating Detroit in 5 last year wasn’t really indicative of how close those teams were.
What’s broken isn’t really that complicated, IMO. The Kings don’t have skilled enough forwards. I know that sounds crazy coming on the heels of a series where the Kings up 4-5 goals a few nights, but scoring is a result that is prone to randomness. Puck pursuit, possession, and retrieval are more controlable skills that most of the Kings forwards jsut are not highly skilled at.
I read the interesting piece on whether Brad Richards should come to LA, and my first thought is even if Brad Richards costs LA Handzus, Stoll, Ponikarovsky AND Trevor Lewis, how could you not do it? It is FAR more difficult to get a player of Richards stature than it is to get 3 players like Jarret Stoll, let alone 1. At that point, you are then hoping that a guy like Brayden Schenn simply replaces a guy like Stoll, rather than have to be better than the Ryan Keslers of the world.
Anyways, interesting stuff, and sorry for the long post. Keep up the good work.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. DL even said in his interviews with Hammond that going into the series they felt the Kings needed to improve their offense and even though they scored a lot and gave up tons of goals that it wasn’t going to make them suddenly think our offense is fine let’s go get some defenseman.
I agree about Richards and one of the most important things about him is that he is a great playmaker and can really create some offense. Right now the Kings have maybe two real playmakers in Kopitar and Williams. Other guys can score but those two are the only ones I would say really can make a play and a pass to find an open teammate for an easy goal on a regular basis and not once in a blue moon. Adding Richards isn’t just about his goal numbers, but also about the opportunities he would create for all sorts of other guys on the Kings roster with his good ice vision and passing.
Hammond's hot-off-the-press opinion is interesting
Just caught up on his open Q&A responses today, and he insists that the Kings will be “interested” in Richards, and that Handzus will be re-upped at a deep discount from his current contract. However, he also admits that other teams (specifically, NYR and TOR) will probably outbid the Kings for Richards.
My position on Richards is similar to how I felt about acquiring Kovalchuk: A good idea, but it comes down to price. No matter what the Kings’ current cap situation, it’s never a good idea to overpay for a player, or to lock yourself into a contract that’s going to cost you bad on the back end. Richards has a few years left as an elite player, and if his concussion knocks his market price down to the neighborhood of $5 mil/year for 3-5 years, he would be a decent risk.
But it also seems to me that this part of your argument contains a fallacy:
my first thought is even if Brad Richards costs LA Handzus, Stoll, Ponikarovsky AND Trevor Lewis, how could you not do it? It is FAR more difficult to get a player of Richards stature than it is to get 3 players like Jarret Stoll, let alone 1.
Because you’re not talking about trading players for Brad Richards, you’re talking about trading their cap space for the cap space that would need to sign Brad Richards. Once that cap space is spent on Richards, you don’t have the wherewithal to bring in the equals of Handzus and Stoll. Plus, Lewis is young enough so that he’s making about the minimum for a player of his on-ice value already, so you’re talking about not being able to replace him at all. And suddenly, the Kings don’t have the same depth.
As I said last summer (though mostly just as a glancing shot), talking about going after a star-quality UFA is fine, but beware the appeal of the man on the white horse.
"Prepare your bladder for imminent release!" — Invader Zim
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now – I see no way Richards becomes a King this offseason. Lombardi will not offer what Sather in New York or Burke in Toronto will offer him. And Sather has the added bonus of Tortorella, who Richards loved playing for in Tampa. Plus, as Quisp mentioned before, signing Richards pretty much screws Schenn and Lotki. It means Schenn will be a third line center at best for as long as Richards is here – I would say a minimum of 5 years – and you may as well trade Lotki now, because they’ll never be room for him at all. I’m not even that high on Richards, who can be great, but can also disappear when he’s needed most – like Dallas’ playoff push this year when he did next to nothing for them.
I also think that Richards would cost more than the players listed above. Handzus and Poni’s salary, that will presumably come off the books, will go to help pay for Penner and the raises for Doughty, Simmonds, Johnson et al. So I think you’d have to clear an additional $6 million to get Richards – which means Stoll and at least one if not two other bigger contracts.
If the team improves offensively this season, it will be via trade – dollar for dollar. Personally, I’ve been operating under the assumption that Handzus and Poni leave and Parse and Schenn OR Lotki get added, and that’s the team the Kings have next year. That seems more in line with DL’s committment to building from within, by using the younger players. Not signing an aging, expensive free agent.
I agree...
No way will Dean keep pace with the Ranger’s front office or any of the other crazy big spending clubs as far as signing Richards is concerned. Too little talent out there in the UFA market this offseason and that I feel that Richards is going to get overpaid most likely. It will probably not be Deano in that position.
I believe Dean is going to look to the trade market so that we can shed or match the salary regarding the addition of any offense.
We have Schenn and Lokti, a possible redemptive Penner and hopefully a healthy Parse to add to the mix and next year. Next year, the Kings also gotta lot of salary coming off the books with Smyth, Penner and Stoll all UFA. More room to deal with tweaking the roster at that point versus this offseason.
I know the K. Insider groupies will cry foul but I see Dean standing pat and keeping to his system of developing this club. I’m all for it.
If I repeated what you said Quispy, Hoolie, etc. I apologize but then I guess I once again… I totally agree…
Wow, I’m already geeked for the draft and the start of free agency and it’s still the second round of the playoffs :/
The Kings’ offense isn’t necessarily lacking up front. They had five 20 goal scorers, and actually 6 if you count Penner’s time with the Oil. The D needs to chip in more, which really falls on you know who’s shoulders (Jack is worth more than 5 goals, and Doughty had an infamously step-back season.)
That said, the most glaring issue with the Kings’ offense is the power play. If they have a better power play they move up from a low-offense team to middle of the pack. An improved power play would potentially have put them where the Sharks finished this season. Plus, Simmonds and Ponikarovsky underachieved, and Handzus is simply getting older.
None of this accounts of course for the lack of focus bit. I’m with every Kings fan in head scratching on that one. But I don’t think a “lack of skill” is problem number one.
Improving the PP would help
But even if the Kings scored at a 20% rate on the PP (which would make them a top 6 or 7 team) that would add only 13 or so goals on the season. That would have tied them for 17th in the league in total goals this season. That is still a below average offense. So even if the Kings get back to their 2009-2010 levels, I’m not sure that is enough for this team.
Maybe Brad Richards isn’t the answer, and DougX brings up a good point regarding the cap space component of signing a superstar. But there needs to be another guy (maybe even two) that plays on the level of Kopitar. The team needs the Kane to Kopitar’s Toews. Their other Sedin, Marleau, Semin, St. Louis, or Briere. The best teams have top skill and depth on both sides of the ice. Otherwise, one is just hopeing that their team is this year’s 2005 Hurricanes.
Good points
I appreciate that, I didn’t realize that would only bring them up to 17th. Though I must say on the other hand, imagine what 13 goals could have done in a season as tight as this one. That could easily be several more wins, or at least more Bettman points.
Not sure if one player will significantly improve the PP
After all, the Kings PP in the playoffs was white hot and then all but disappeared this season even though the team still had the key players on their PP unit (Johnson, Doughty, Kopitar, Smyth, etc.). Personally, I think it has a lot more to do with system than it does players. Not enough movement, too much predictability. Actually, I think putting Loktionov on the PP on a permanent, long-term basis would improve the PP over the course of the season. He’s very creative with the puck.
I know what the problem is in the playoffs...
More booing at Staples… Seems we can’t play well or disciplined enough at home…
Go away, or pass away. Your choice.
Barca Blaugranes
Few holes to fill and lack of focus.
Agree, more scoring punch would help the Kings big time, but like the pursuit of Kovalsuck I say forget going after a Veteran UFA if his cost is prohibitive. I expect Brad Richards cost will be prohibitive. Lack of focus was did the Kings in this season.
The Playoffs are fresh in our minds and the Kings getting away from their game on a number of occasions including that disasterous 2nd period in G3 merely followed a pattern established during the season.
The 2 losing stretches were soul destroying. 3-17-0 in the two losing stretchs. SIX pts. in TWENTY games, The remaining 62 games? 92 pts! Had the Kings played at that level all season they would have wound up with a 122 pts. cleared the President’s trophy by what 6 pts? Sure that’s a specious argument but as Quisp points out, more “Professional” teams like the hated red wings would have managed to pick up at least 15-18 pts if they had such lousy stretches. I believe they pretty much did do that.
As tight as the West was, a couple points would have been huge. Recall those stretches and what was it? Mainly the Kings not playing team defense, not able to tie games up etc.. etc… Lack of focus on the defense, lack of scoring punch as well.
Remember Kopi had a huge drought during the season as well….
Is It Really a Matter of Being Broken?
Or is this just a matter of growing a team combined with circumstances such as several single purpose veterans players, integrating a new pick up, injuries, developing youth and a couple of older vets that seem to be pooping?
If so then no big deal. Carry onward and upward…
The past two playoff series may have seemed closer then 6-2 indicated as parity often makes games appear closer then they are/were. The Kings were still outmatched.
“Still Got a Long Way to Go”
Are Teemu Selanne and Melanie Griffith Twins?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
