Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
How much blame do you lay on Marcel Dionne for the Kings' success in the playoffs?
- Thread starter Big Phil
- Start date
Iron Mike Sharpe
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2017
- 949
- 1,123
The Kings of Dionne's time has the absolute worst schedule in the history of the NHL, that was likely the biggest factor in their lack of success. It's hard to imagine the amount of fatigue, jet lag and time in transit the Kings had to endure.
The problems with ownership trickled down to other problems: poor management, so-so coaching, and a lack of depth - the team tended to be top heavy, especially with their forwards. Adequate defense, but goaltending was horrible between Vachon leaving and Hrudey arriving.
The problems with ownership trickled down to other problems: poor management, so-so coaching, and a lack of depth - the team tended to be top heavy, especially with their forwards. Adequate defense, but goaltending was horrible between Vachon leaving and Hrudey arriving.
One player can't carry a hockey team unless he's a goalie.
I also feel like Dionne was better suited to being a star on a bad team. One of the reasons his numbers were so good is because he got all the ice time and shots that he wanted. I don't know if he could have made the Yzerman transition to being a more complete player on a competitive team.
I also feel like Dionne was better suited to being a star on a bad team. One of the reasons his numbers were so good is because he got all the ice time and shots that he wanted. I don't know if he could have made the Yzerman transition to being a more complete player on a competitive team.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
None.
1980-81 was the only season the Kings lost to a weaker team in the playoffs.
1981-82 Kings (63 points) beat the Oilers (111 points) in a monumental upset.
1980-81 was the only season the Kings lost to a weaker team in the playoffs.
1981-82 Kings (63 points) beat the Oilers (111 points) in a monumental upset.
Marcel Dionne was a great player, but the Kings were never a great team. Barely ever even a 'good' team. They never had anywhere near the depth required to carry them deep into the playoffs.
Post-Vachon the goaltending was terrible, and most years the defence was otherwise mediocre at best. Even in the Gretzky era they were one of the worst defensive teams in the league, and sure enough Gretzky never got them to the promised land either.
I don't know what else one would have 'asked' of Marcel Dionne.
Post-Vachon the goaltending was terrible, and most years the defence was otherwise mediocre at best. Even in the Gretzky era they were one of the worst defensive teams in the league, and sure enough Gretzky never got them to the promised land either.
I don't know what else one would have 'asked' of Marcel Dionne.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
Will we be reading a similar thread with similar responsens in twenty years, just that Dionne is changed for McDavid?
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
None.
Dionne's Kings were like Hasek's Sabres. Making the playoffs was an accomplishment itself for them.
Once in the playoffs, everyone knew what to do against those Kings teams. Just load up against Dionne and make someone else beat you. His scoring dropped, but he was still PPG in the playoffs in LA (43 in 43)
Dionne's Kings were like Hasek's Sabres. Making the playoffs was an accomplishment itself for them.
Once in the playoffs, everyone knew what to do against those Kings teams. Just load up against Dionne and make someone else beat you. His scoring dropped, but he was still PPG in the playoffs in LA (43 in 43)
McDavid is a clear tier (or two) up from Dionne as a player. So not at all. It's only 4 games, but he scored 9 points this past playoffs, and it's probably already better than any Dionne individual playoff run. He's only 24. Mario Lemieux was 24 in his first ever playoff appearance, and is a top 10 playoff performer ever. Anything's possible I suppose - but in my opinion, no chance. McDavid will do great, cup or no.
PPG isn't exactly anything special in this case though. In the regular season in LA he was scoring at 1.4+ ppg pace. That's a very steep drop to ppg.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I don't think they ever really had a chance at winning the Cup, but I think they may have won a few more rounds here and there if he had performed up to his regular season standards.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
I didn't particularly mean to compare Dionne and McDavid head-to-head, I agree McD is above Dionne, just that their situations seem quite similar most things taken together. Both are superstars on similarly ailed franchises. Poor management, so-and-so coaching, average defense and uneven goaltending at best. It will be interesting to see just how far McDavid and Draisatl will be able to pull the Oilers as they look right now. Maybe Holland has gotten their act together but with their notoriously poor drafting I don't see any big changes coming soon.
I get where you're coming from - but again my argument that Mario Lemieux hadn't even played a single playoff game by McDavid's age. I think it's too young to make any type of negative career projections for McDavid in the playoffs. It's a lot more likely that he ends up playing on multiple contending teams and having many long playoff runs than not - probably even win at least 1 cup or more.
BadgerBruce
Registered User
- Aug 8, 2013
- 1,558
- 2,194
I don’t recall ever thinking that the Kings got knocked out because Dionne didn’t become Atlas.
Yes, Cinderella stories do happen but the league was in the midst of a series of dynasty or dynasty-like clubs running back to back to back to back (Broad Street Bullies, the Habs, the Islanders, the Oilers). That’s pretty much Dionne’s entire career.
I’d liken the situation a bit to Andy Bathgate’s on the Rangers in the 1950s and early-1960s. Great player for a decade on a consistently lousy team with no chance of single-handedly leading the club to playoff success. The field was just too strong.
Yes, Cinderella stories do happen but the league was in the midst of a series of dynasty or dynasty-like clubs running back to back to back to back (Broad Street Bullies, the Habs, the Islanders, the Oilers). That’s pretty much Dionne’s entire career.
I’d liken the situation a bit to Andy Bathgate’s on the Rangers in the 1950s and early-1960s. Great player for a decade on a consistently lousy team with no chance of single-handedly leading the club to playoff success. The field was just too strong.
The Pale King
Go easy on those Mango Giapanes brother...
Dionne would have had to score at an absurd pace to keep those teams afloat in the playoffs. By my count, his teams had a combined .864 SV% over the nine playoff seasons between his arrival in 75-76 and departure following 86-87. You might be thinking "whatever, 80's goaltending was bad, he should have dealt with it." For comparisons sake, the 87-88 Kings were last in the NHL in GA, and they sported an .863 SV%. So Dionne's teams were providing last place regular-season-esque goaltending, except this was in the playoffs against teams like the Oilers, Bruins, Rangers, Leafs and a particularly demoralizing series against the Islanders and recent tradee Butch Goring. Not to mention the combined 4.29 GAA, this on teams giving up an average of 32 shots a game.
If we take out the two seasons of respectable goaltending by Rogie Vachon at the start of the run (where they beat an Atlanta Flames team in the preliminary round each year before running into the Bruins), we're left with even more abysmal numbers. From 77-78 through 86-87, things dip to a .853 SV%, with a GAA of 4.80.
What player in NHL history is going to score enough to off-set those numbers?
If we take out the two seasons of respectable goaltending by Rogie Vachon at the start of the run (where they beat an Atlanta Flames team in the preliminary round each year before running into the Bruins), we're left with even more abysmal numbers. From 77-78 through 86-87, things dip to a .853 SV%, with a GAA of 4.80.
What player in NHL history is going to score enough to off-set those numbers?
Last edited:
King K Rool
Big Bad
In 1975 they were moved from what was the original six division to the Norris division with MTL, PIT, DET, and WAS.
Not taking anything away from the Habs dynasty because they were so dominant, but being in the same division as the expansion Capitals? the Dead-Things era Red Wings? A team over 4,500km away?
Not taking anything away from the Habs dynasty because they were so dominant, but being in the same division as the expansion Capitals? the Dead-Things era Red Wings? A team over 4,500km away?
GMR
Registered User
There's no doubt his stats dropped significantly in the playoffs.
That said, even if he scored at his regular season pace, how far could they go? He played in the same era as three of the greatest dynasties in the sport. Bad time to play in the NHL unless you played for the Canadiens, Islanders, or Oilers. Didn't leave many titles for others.
That said, even if he scored at his regular season pace, how far could they go? He played in the same era as three of the greatest dynasties in the sport. Bad time to play in the NHL unless you played for the Canadiens, Islanders, or Oilers. Didn't leave many titles for others.
The Pale King
Go easy on those Mango Giapanes brother...
Dionne's numbers did fall off slightly in the playoffs. But if we adjust his playoff points per game as a King (1.00) to be equal to his regular season points per game (1.41), he gets an extra 17 points over eight seasons, or just over two points a year. Hypothetically, which years would an extra two goals have made a difference in?
In 75-76, all the Kings losses to the Bruins were by at least three goals (7-1, 4-0, 3-0, 3-0). They did beat the Flames in round 1 though.
For 1976-77, after beating the Flames a second time, they again face the Bruins. Games 3 and the deciding game 6 were both one goal losses (7-6 and 4-3, so an extra couple points here would be nice but Dionne still had 9 points in the six games).
Perhaps an early low-point, in 77-78, Vachon and the team allowed 11 goals in two games to the Maple Leafs. You'd definitely like to see more from Dionne here (just 2 shots), as he was scoreless, but an extra two points probably doesn't turn the tide unless those goals come early in the game.
I've watched the 78-79 series vs the Rangers on youtube. Mario Lessard got ventilated in game one 7-1, sliding out and getting beat on at least 3 of the goals. An unscreened wrist shot from outside the circles to make it 3-1 and pretty much closed the book. These weren't good goals, even taking the era into account. The weird thing was that Bob Berry broke up the Triple Crown Line pretty early in this one, and it really didn't work. You want more from Dionne in the 2-1 OT loss at home in game 2, but again, this was a short series where the Kings get blown out in the first game. An extra two points from Dionne and they're probably looking at a game 3 loss, as Davidsons .966 sv% was in a different stratosphere from Lessard's .877.
A year later and the 79-80 Kings lose 3-1 to the eventual Cup champion Islanders. The Kings won the second game 6-3, but also lost the opener 8-1 and the final game 6-0. The only close game was the 3rd, a 4-3 Islanders victory in OT. You definitely at least want one goal from Dionne here, but he led all players with 18 shots in the series, despite the Islanders taking nearly 40 extra shots. This must have been extra tough on Dionne, as he was totally snakebit while longtime ex-teammate Butch Goring had 5 points in the series. If we squint here, an extra couple points from Dionne and maybe the Kings pull off a crazy upset similar to what they'd do to the Oilers two seasons later. But really this was pretty much what you'd expect from a 74 point Kings team up against a hungry soon-to-be dynasty in the 91 point Islanders.
In 80-81, the Kings squad had their best regular season with Dionne. I really don't know what happened here. Games 1 and 2 were close, a 3-1 Rangers win and a 5-4 Kings victory. But the Rangers scored 16 goals in the next two games to close things out. This was the only time Dionne's Kings lost to an underdog, and they were hot going into the playoffs, riding a 5-1-1 streak. A couple extra goals from Dionne might drag the series out a bit, but we don’t have to look too far past the Kings combined .832 SV% to find the real culprit. A bunch of this series is on youtube, and while the first couple games the Kings play something resembling a system, trying to limit zone entries and contest shots, they completely abandoned this as they grew more frustrated as the series went on. Nine straight Rangers goals in game 3. Some completely uninspired pond hockey by the fourth game. If you want to see the nadir of early 80s shimmy, watch the 6-0 game 4 Rangers victory.
I won’t dwell too much on the fabled 81-82 upset of the 111-point Oilers. I will mention though that as bad as Fuhr was in the series, his .853 SV% in the series was exactly equal to the combined Kings playoff SV% from 78-87. Lessard’s .870 was just good enough to get the job done. There were a bunch of close games against the Canucks in the next round. You’d like an extra couple points from Dionne here, especially as he finally had a capable puck moving defenseman in Larry Murphy, but Richard Brodeur put up a very modern .920 SV% to Lessards Stone Age .860. The Canucks were beatable, but the 63-point Kings were not a well-built team. I don’t know how they didn’t manage to upgrade on Lessard one of these off-seasons. He clearly wasn’t good enough.
The Kings missed the playoffs the next two seasons while Dionne piled on another 200+ points. By 84-85, the Kings were lined up to play the dynasty Oilers in the semis, just getting into their groove and eager to avenge the embarrassment of a few seasons prior. THIS series is the only time the Kings got adequate goaltending during Dionne's tenure after Vachon left. Give Bob Janecyk all the credit in the world here, as his .899 SV% over the three-game sweep was a shining beacon of competency in a decade of sieve-dom. It wasn’t enough to make a difference, and again, Dionne could have put up an extra couple points to drag this series out to 4 games. But he’s 32 years old here, facing a dynasty just hitting their stride. They weren’t going to win this series, not without him or Nicholls going nuclear. But I’m surprised how tight the defensive play was in this series, as the regular season matchups combined for 76 goals in 8 games, or 9.5 goals a game. It dipped to 6 in this series. It’s a shame Janecyk hadn’t arrived on the scene in 80-81 or so.
And that was it for Dionne’s tenure! The Kings missed the playoffs in 85-86, and Dionne was hurt for the 86-87 run. That year Melanson and Daren Elliot combined for an .830 run against the Oilers, so he didn’t miss much.
So to close, yes there are a few seasons where if Dionne scored at his regular season rate, perhaps the Kings make a slightly deeper run. Really the only year where I can see them fluking into the finals is 81-82, where a couple timely goals could have knocked off the Canucks, and the Blackhawks in the next round weren't a great team either. 80-81 was disappointing as well, but the team imploded defensively. Year after year, it looks like management failed to address any of the team needs, and coaching failed to compensate for the obvious shortcomings. Could Dionne have backchecked more? Of course, but so many of these years they were miles away from being competitive, and Dionne made things look closer than they really were.
God, that was depressing. Anyone have a Bob Janecyk jersey they want to sell?
In 75-76, all the Kings losses to the Bruins were by at least three goals (7-1, 4-0, 3-0, 3-0). They did beat the Flames in round 1 though.
For 1976-77, after beating the Flames a second time, they again face the Bruins. Games 3 and the deciding game 6 were both one goal losses (7-6 and 4-3, so an extra couple points here would be nice but Dionne still had 9 points in the six games).
Perhaps an early low-point, in 77-78, Vachon and the team allowed 11 goals in two games to the Maple Leafs. You'd definitely like to see more from Dionne here (just 2 shots), as he was scoreless, but an extra two points probably doesn't turn the tide unless those goals come early in the game.
I've watched the 78-79 series vs the Rangers on youtube. Mario Lessard got ventilated in game one 7-1, sliding out and getting beat on at least 3 of the goals. An unscreened wrist shot from outside the circles to make it 3-1 and pretty much closed the book. These weren't good goals, even taking the era into account. The weird thing was that Bob Berry broke up the Triple Crown Line pretty early in this one, and it really didn't work. You want more from Dionne in the 2-1 OT loss at home in game 2, but again, this was a short series where the Kings get blown out in the first game. An extra two points from Dionne and they're probably looking at a game 3 loss, as Davidsons .966 sv% was in a different stratosphere from Lessard's .877.
A year later and the 79-80 Kings lose 3-1 to the eventual Cup champion Islanders. The Kings won the second game 6-3, but also lost the opener 8-1 and the final game 6-0. The only close game was the 3rd, a 4-3 Islanders victory in OT. You definitely at least want one goal from Dionne here, but he led all players with 18 shots in the series, despite the Islanders taking nearly 40 extra shots. This must have been extra tough on Dionne, as he was totally snakebit while longtime ex-teammate Butch Goring had 5 points in the series. If we squint here, an extra couple points from Dionne and maybe the Kings pull off a crazy upset similar to what they'd do to the Oilers two seasons later. But really this was pretty much what you'd expect from a 74 point Kings team up against a hungry soon-to-be dynasty in the 91 point Islanders.
In 80-81, the Kings squad had their best regular season with Dionne. I really don't know what happened here. Games 1 and 2 were close, a 3-1 Rangers win and a 5-4 Kings victory. But the Rangers scored 16 goals in the next two games to close things out. This was the only time Dionne's Kings lost to an underdog, and they were hot going into the playoffs, riding a 5-1-1 streak. A couple extra goals from Dionne might drag the series out a bit, but we don’t have to look too far past the Kings combined .832 SV% to find the real culprit. A bunch of this series is on youtube, and while the first couple games the Kings play something resembling a system, trying to limit zone entries and contest shots, they completely abandoned this as they grew more frustrated as the series went on. Nine straight Rangers goals in game 3. Some completely uninspired pond hockey by the fourth game. If you want to see the nadir of early 80s shimmy, watch the 6-0 game 4 Rangers victory.
I won’t dwell too much on the fabled 81-82 upset of the 111-point Oilers. I will mention though that as bad as Fuhr was in the series, his .853 SV% in the series was exactly equal to the combined Kings playoff SV% from 78-87. Lessard’s .870 was just good enough to get the job done. There were a bunch of close games against the Canucks in the next round. You’d like an extra couple points from Dionne here, especially as he finally had a capable puck moving defenseman in Larry Murphy, but Richard Brodeur put up a very modern .920 SV% to Lessards Stone Age .860. The Canucks were beatable, but the 63-point Kings were not a well-built team. I don’t know how they didn’t manage to upgrade on Lessard one of these off-seasons. He clearly wasn’t good enough.
The Kings missed the playoffs the next two seasons while Dionne piled on another 200+ points. By 84-85, the Kings were lined up to play the dynasty Oilers in the semis, just getting into their groove and eager to avenge the embarrassment of a few seasons prior. THIS series is the only time the Kings got adequate goaltending during Dionne's tenure after Vachon left. Give Bob Janecyk all the credit in the world here, as his .899 SV% over the three-game sweep was a shining beacon of competency in a decade of sieve-dom. It wasn’t enough to make a difference, and again, Dionne could have put up an extra couple points to drag this series out to 4 games. But he’s 32 years old here, facing a dynasty just hitting their stride. They weren’t going to win this series, not without him or Nicholls going nuclear. But I’m surprised how tight the defensive play was in this series, as the regular season matchups combined for 76 goals in 8 games, or 9.5 goals a game. It dipped to 6 in this series. It’s a shame Janecyk hadn’t arrived on the scene in 80-81 or so.
And that was it for Dionne’s tenure! The Kings missed the playoffs in 85-86, and Dionne was hurt for the 86-87 run. That year Melanson and Daren Elliot combined for an .830 run against the Oilers, so he didn’t miss much.
So to close, yes there are a few seasons where if Dionne scored at his regular season rate, perhaps the Kings make a slightly deeper run. Really the only year where I can see them fluking into the finals is 81-82, where a couple timely goals could have knocked off the Canucks, and the Blackhawks in the next round weren't a great team either. 80-81 was disappointing as well, but the team imploded defensively. Year after year, it looks like management failed to address any of the team needs, and coaching failed to compensate for the obvious shortcomings. Could Dionne have backchecked more? Of course, but so many of these years they were miles away from being competitive, and Dionne made things look closer than they really were.
God, that was depressing. Anyone have a Bob Janecyk jersey they want to sell?
Last edited:
Staniowski
Registered User
Dionne played the same in the playoffs as he did in regular seasons, he just played for some bad teams. If he had played for the Canadiens - and his quality of play was exactly the same - he would've won several Cups and probably led the NHL in playoff scoring multiple times.
Voight
#winning
@Dreakmur had a good bio on him from a previous ATD.
Dispelling the Loser Myth
Year by year break-down
1976 – lost to Boston in 1st round. (7 games)
Boston had 113 points in a strong division, and Los Angeles had 85 points in a weak division.
Led LA in goals and points.
5th in total goals and 2nd in goals per game.
1977 – lost to Boston in the 1st round. (6 games)
Boston had 106 points, and Los Angeles had 83.
Led LA in assists and points.
7th in total points and 4th in points per game.
9th in total goals and 8th in goals per game.
8th in total assists and 4th in assists per game.
1978 – lost to Toronto in preliminary round. (2 games)
Toronto had 92 points, and Los Angeles had 77.
LA scored only 2 goals, and Dionne was pointless.
1979 – lost to New York in preliminary round (2 games)
New York had 91 points, and Los Angeles had 80.
LA scored 2 goals, and Dionne has an assists… so he was tied for the scoring lead.
1980 – lost to New York in preliminary round (4 games)
New York had 91 points, and Los Angeles had 74.
Led LA in assists and points.
1981 – lost to New York in preliminary round (4 games)
New York had 74 points, and Los Angeles had 99.
Led LA in assists and points.
1982 – defeated Edmonton in 1st round (5 games), and lost to Vancouver in the 2nd round (5 games)
Edmonton had 111 points, Vancouver had 77, and Los Angeles had 63.
Led LA in goals, and 2nd in points.
10th in total goals and 5th in goals per game.
1983 and 1984 – missed play-offs
1985 – lost to Edmonton in 1st round (3 games)
Edmonton had 109 points, and Los Angeles had 82.
Led LA in assists and 2nd in points.
1986 – missed play-offs.
1987 – lost to Philadelphia in 1st round (6 games)
Philadelphia had 100 points, New York had 76.
Only 1 goal and 1 assists….. but he was getting old.
Underdog Factor
Marcel Dionne played in 10 play-off series', and was the underdog 9 times. In those 9 series' as an underdog, Dionne's team finished an average of 22 points behind their opponent in the standinge!
The one series victory was over Edmonton, who finished 48 points ahead!
The Los Angeles Kings were a one line team, and pretty much a one player team. Can anyone name a defenseman from LA? How about somebody from the 2nd line?
Compared to Peers
1977-1985 Play-offs
Marcel Dionne – 20 goals and 43 points in 43 games = 1.00 PPG
Jacques Lemaire – 27 goals and 57 points in 48 games = 1.07 PPG
Bryan Trottier – 54 goals and 154 points in 148 games = 1.04 PPG
Jean Ratelle – 23 goals and 56 points in 58 games = 0.97 PPG
Doug Gilmour – 3 goals and 13 points in 14 games = 0.93 PPG
Bobby Clarke – 31 goals and 79 points in 87 games = 0.91 PPG
Rick MacLeish – 26 goals and 57 points in 66 games = 0.86 PPG
Steve Shutt – 44 goals and 83 points in 83 games = 1.00 PPG
Joe Mullen – 9 goals and 20 points in 20 games = 1.00 PPG
Mike Gartner – 7 goals and 17 points in 17 games = 1.00 PPG
Rick Middleton – 36 goals and 86 point in 88 games = 0.98 PPG
Bill Barber – 41 goals and 79 points in 84 games = 0.94 PPG
Michel Goulet – 24 goals and 47 points in 50 games = 0.94 PPG
Dino Ciccareli – 28 goals and 50 points in 57 games = 0.88 PPG
Brian Propp – 22 goals and 53 points in 60 games = 0.88 PPG
As you can see, compared to some of his high profile peers, Dionne was a solid play-off performer. He always played for garbage teams, so he always played strong opponents and got bounced early. Despite that, his per game numbers stack up respectably.
Dispelling the Loser Myth
Year by year break-down
1976 – lost to Boston in 1st round. (7 games)
Boston had 113 points in a strong division, and Los Angeles had 85 points in a weak division.
Led LA in goals and points.
5th in total goals and 2nd in goals per game.
1977 – lost to Boston in the 1st round. (6 games)
Boston had 106 points, and Los Angeles had 83.
Led LA in assists and points.
7th in total points and 4th in points per game.
9th in total goals and 8th in goals per game.
8th in total assists and 4th in assists per game.
1978 – lost to Toronto in preliminary round. (2 games)
Toronto had 92 points, and Los Angeles had 77.
LA scored only 2 goals, and Dionne was pointless.
1979 – lost to New York in preliminary round (2 games)
New York had 91 points, and Los Angeles had 80.
LA scored 2 goals, and Dionne has an assists… so he was tied for the scoring lead.
1980 – lost to New York in preliminary round (4 games)
New York had 91 points, and Los Angeles had 74.
Led LA in assists and points.
1981 – lost to New York in preliminary round (4 games)
New York had 74 points, and Los Angeles had 99.
Led LA in assists and points.
1982 – defeated Edmonton in 1st round (5 games), and lost to Vancouver in the 2nd round (5 games)
Edmonton had 111 points, Vancouver had 77, and Los Angeles had 63.
Led LA in goals, and 2nd in points.
10th in total goals and 5th in goals per game.
1983 and 1984 – missed play-offs
1985 – lost to Edmonton in 1st round (3 games)
Edmonton had 109 points, and Los Angeles had 82.
Led LA in assists and 2nd in points.
1986 – missed play-offs.
1987 – lost to Philadelphia in 1st round (6 games)
Philadelphia had 100 points, New York had 76.
Only 1 goal and 1 assists….. but he was getting old.
Underdog Factor
Marcel Dionne played in 10 play-off series', and was the underdog 9 times. In those 9 series' as an underdog, Dionne's team finished an average of 22 points behind their opponent in the standinge!
The one series victory was over Edmonton, who finished 48 points ahead!
The Los Angeles Kings were a one line team, and pretty much a one player team. Can anyone name a defenseman from LA? How about somebody from the 2nd line?
Compared to Peers
1977-1985 Play-offs
Marcel Dionne – 20 goals and 43 points in 43 games = 1.00 PPG
Jacques Lemaire – 27 goals and 57 points in 48 games = 1.07 PPG
Bryan Trottier – 54 goals and 154 points in 148 games = 1.04 PPG
Jean Ratelle – 23 goals and 56 points in 58 games = 0.97 PPG
Doug Gilmour – 3 goals and 13 points in 14 games = 0.93 PPG
Bobby Clarke – 31 goals and 79 points in 87 games = 0.91 PPG
Rick MacLeish – 26 goals and 57 points in 66 games = 0.86 PPG
Steve Shutt – 44 goals and 83 points in 83 games = 1.00 PPG
Joe Mullen – 9 goals and 20 points in 20 games = 1.00 PPG
Mike Gartner – 7 goals and 17 points in 17 games = 1.00 PPG
Rick Middleton – 36 goals and 86 point in 88 games = 0.98 PPG
Bill Barber – 41 goals and 79 points in 84 games = 0.94 PPG
Michel Goulet – 24 goals and 47 points in 50 games = 0.94 PPG
Dino Ciccareli – 28 goals and 50 points in 57 games = 0.88 PPG
Brian Propp – 22 goals and 53 points in 60 games = 0.88 PPG
As you can see, compared to some of his high profile peers, Dionne was a solid play-off performer. He always played for garbage teams, so he always played strong opponents and got bounced early. Despite that, his per game numbers stack up respectably.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Here is the issue I have with Dionne in the playoffs. There are times when you lose and you look good. There are times when you lose and look bad. Dionne routinely lost while not looking good. Here is an example. Doug Gilmour often looked good while losing. He often performed well in playoff losses. Game 7 vs. L.A. in 1993 he had 3 points and 14 in the series, but lost. Peter Forsberg led the playoffs in points twice despite not making the final. Even to an extent Gilbert Perreault seemed to at least go down with a fight. So there are lots of guys who did this.
It isn't that Dionne should have won a Cup, I get that, I think on this particular board we all do and we can all see the deficiencies the Kings had as a team back then. But there was a window and that was 1981 and 1982. This is the peak of the Triple Crown years. You have a 99 point team going against a team with 25 less points than them. Dionne has 4 points in the 3-1 series loss. That's not good. He just had 135 during the year. They did not get good goaltending that series, but just as I said that is the point of at least looking good in a loss. Theo Fleury had some hard luck on those Flames teams but look at his stats. He produced in the 1st round of the playoffs even when they lost.
1982 was another year too. You've got a miracle of a win against Edmonton, who is as green as grass at the time. Build on that. But they didn't. They lost in 5 games to the Canucks the next round. This is one of the worst teams to make the final, the Canucks. Dionne had 4 points in that series. People point to the fact they had 63 points. Yes they did, but this was NOT a 63 point team. Simmer missed half the year, Nicholls played just 22 games that year, and while Lessard had a rotten year in net, this was still a team who had more talent than the Canucks. I have always thought they were better than their stats showed. But if you beat the Canucks then you play the Hawks, who had 72 points that year. If there was ever a ticket to the Cup final, this was it. Sure they'd have lost easily to the Islanders just like the Canucks did.
Other years like 1978 and 1979 they lost to a team with better records than them, but this is a best two out of three. The 1975 Blackhawks beat the Bruins with this same format back then. Dionne was pointless against Toronto in 1978 in both games and had just an assist in two games vs. the Rangers in 1979. All I am saying is that you can look better in a loss than that. I am not saying they should beat the Bruins in 1976 or 1977, or even the Islanders in 1980, but somewhere along the line you figure Dionne wins a 7 game series in his career, and he didn't. I've seen players of much smaller value carry a team. Daniel Briere multiple times, Logan Couture for the Sharks, why couldn't Dionne, a guy who had 6 120+ point seasons carry his team to a best of 7 series victory even once?
It isn't that Dionne should have won a Cup, I get that, I think on this particular board we all do and we can all see the deficiencies the Kings had as a team back then. But there was a window and that was 1981 and 1982. This is the peak of the Triple Crown years. You have a 99 point team going against a team with 25 less points than them. Dionne has 4 points in the 3-1 series loss. That's not good. He just had 135 during the year. They did not get good goaltending that series, but just as I said that is the point of at least looking good in a loss. Theo Fleury had some hard luck on those Flames teams but look at his stats. He produced in the 1st round of the playoffs even when they lost.
1982 was another year too. You've got a miracle of a win against Edmonton, who is as green as grass at the time. Build on that. But they didn't. They lost in 5 games to the Canucks the next round. This is one of the worst teams to make the final, the Canucks. Dionne had 4 points in that series. People point to the fact they had 63 points. Yes they did, but this was NOT a 63 point team. Simmer missed half the year, Nicholls played just 22 games that year, and while Lessard had a rotten year in net, this was still a team who had more talent than the Canucks. I have always thought they were better than their stats showed. But if you beat the Canucks then you play the Hawks, who had 72 points that year. If there was ever a ticket to the Cup final, this was it. Sure they'd have lost easily to the Islanders just like the Canucks did.
Other years like 1978 and 1979 they lost to a team with better records than them, but this is a best two out of three. The 1975 Blackhawks beat the Bruins with this same format back then. Dionne was pointless against Toronto in 1978 in both games and had just an assist in two games vs. the Rangers in 1979. All I am saying is that you can look better in a loss than that. I am not saying they should beat the Bruins in 1976 or 1977, or even the Islanders in 1980, but somewhere along the line you figure Dionne wins a 7 game series in his career, and he didn't. I've seen players of much smaller value carry a team. Daniel Briere multiple times, Logan Couture for the Sharks, why couldn't Dionne, a guy who had 6 120+ point seasons carry his team to a best of 7 series victory even once?
It's not the same situation.
In the regular season, he was playing an equal balance of all teams.
In the playoffs he was going into every playoff series on a barely-playoff team playing one of the top teams in the NHL.
The quality of competition in those 43 games was *miles* above what he (and everyone else) would be facing in the regular season in the NHL.
Ron Francis looked like a playoff bum in the same situation in Hartford and then magically became a playoff star when he went to a good team in Pittsburgh.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,776
- 16,213
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
As impressive as Francis was, I think most of us agree Dionne was definitely better in his prime and more capable of carrying a team on his back.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
Well clearly Dionne wasn't capable of carrying a team on his back deep into the playoffs or else he would have done it. I mean I often wonder what the implication is meant to be when we talk about playoff performance vs regular season performance.
I don't think there's anything mysterious about a playoff game in the NHL. Most of the longer-lasting players will play in at least a few dozen of them, many of the successful ones in well over 100. A playoff game for an NHL player isn't like say a World Cup Final for a soccer player where you can argue that most players will only be in one in their career, and it's an unprecedented and uniquely challenging environment.
I don't think talk of 'choking' or 'buckling under pressure' are really valid points when it comes to playoff performance issues given that, so clearly if we say it's more than random variance it means we must think it says something about the player's ability. It's widely accepted that the playoff game tends to be more physical and more intense vs higher quality opposition than the regular season game. It's 'tougher' to shine in the playoffs therefore.
So I feel like when people say Marcel Dionne underwhelmed in the playoffs - the implication is that many of his regular season points were empty throwaway points in games vs poor opposition or opposition that wasn't fully committed to stopping Dionne because of the context of the game. In other words it seems to me like playoff performance is generally used as a validator for regular season performance. If we apply that concept the only rational outcome would be that Marcel Dionne simply wasn't as good as the regular season numbers would have indicated. As such then however it's not sensible really to assign 'blame' for it, any more so than blaming a guy washing out of the ECHL for not making a NHL roster.
I don't think there's anything mysterious about a playoff game in the NHL. Most of the longer-lasting players will play in at least a few dozen of them, many of the successful ones in well over 100. A playoff game for an NHL player isn't like say a World Cup Final for a soccer player where you can argue that most players will only be in one in their career, and it's an unprecedented and uniquely challenging environment.
I don't think talk of 'choking' or 'buckling under pressure' are really valid points when it comes to playoff performance issues given that, so clearly if we say it's more than random variance it means we must think it says something about the player's ability. It's widely accepted that the playoff game tends to be more physical and more intense vs higher quality opposition than the regular season game. It's 'tougher' to shine in the playoffs therefore.
So I feel like when people say Marcel Dionne underwhelmed in the playoffs - the implication is that many of his regular season points were empty throwaway points in games vs poor opposition or opposition that wasn't fully committed to stopping Dionne because of the context of the game. In other words it seems to me like playoff performance is generally used as a validator for regular season performance. If we apply that concept the only rational outcome would be that Marcel Dionne simply wasn't as good as the regular season numbers would have indicated. As such then however it's not sensible really to assign 'blame' for it, any more so than blaming a guy washing out of the ECHL for not making a NHL roster.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
FerrisRox
"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: WCQF: (C3) Colorado Avalanche vs (C2) Winnipeg Jets | Jets Lead 1-0- Latest: The Abusement Park
-
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $400.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
