How much blame do you lay on Marcel Dionne for the Kings' success in the playoffs?

[Big Phil]

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.

Fair points. I think when you have a guy who had 130 points in the NHL three years in a row you still have to give him credit for this because this is the NHL and even though there would be empty points and empty games with not a lot of meaning this is still against the best in the world. And every team and player have their reasons as to why they`d want to stop him. This is why everyone and their mother pick Lafleur as the better all-time player even though Dionne outpoints him. In 1979 you still pick Lafleur even though Dionne outscored him, and probably even in 1980 as well. There are times when a player can look good despite losing. I thought Brad Park was still a good playoff performer in his career. Ironically both Dionne and Park are often battling out on boards like this as who is the best to never have won the Cup. But Park did well, and he still did well against Montreal in the 1970s when they lost to them, or when he was on the Rangers against Boston in 1972.

Jagr had some moments in the postseason on those Mario-less Pens teams where he stepped up and at least had some good numbers in a loss. It is just strange that Dionne never once took his team to victory in a best of 7. There was not that series where he had 11 points in 4-5 games and he just takes things over.

Zero.

It can't be 0% blame.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Jagr had some moments in the postseason on those Mario-less Pens teams where he stepped up and at least had some good numbers in a loss. It is just strange that Dionne never once took his team to victory in a best of 7. There was not that series where he had 11 points in 4-5 games and he just takes things over.

As a for instance, the #8 seed Penguins upset the #1 seed Devils in 1999 in large part thanks to Jagr.

 

[Jumptheshark]

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.

I am sadly old enough to remember the Kings playing in the old Norris division with the Canadians, Wings, Pens and Caps. And I remember looking at a map and asking why?

 

[Jumptheshark]

It wasnt till the 81/82 season that the Kings were moved to the western conference and the old Smythe division

 

[67 others]

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.

Well, winning a single 7 game series would have been nice. Gretzky at least got them to the finals.

Marcel Dionne was an exceptionally skilled yet predictable player, which means good teams could and did shut him down in the playoffs

 

[Moose Head]

Any truth to the rumour that the first time Dionne met Vachon was at Vachon’s retirement party? Dionne has a notorious cherry picker rep.

 

[Hoser]

Well, winning a single 7 game series would have been nice. Gretzky at least got them to the finals.

Marcel Dionne was an exceptionally skilled yet predictable player, which means good teams could and did shut him down in the playoffs

Gretzky had Kurri, Robitaille, Granato, Tomas Sandstrom, with Darryl Sydor, Rob Blake and Alexei Zhitnik on the back end and (much as he wasn't a particularly great goaltender, at least he was 'adequate') Kelly Hrudey.

Dionne's supporting cast consisted of Dave Taylor, Charlie Simmer, and... ??? Vachon, when he was there. In Dionne's later years Robitaille, Bernie Nicholls and Larry Murphy as young pups. Beyond that pretty much a cast of also-rans. Again, those Dionne-era Kings teams were nowhere near as deep as the teams that Gretzky played on.

 

[ted2019]

@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.

You can't compare Dionne to the players highlighted in pink. The top 4 players were high end 2 way centers who's job was usually to shutdown the other teams top offensive players. Also, Barber played on Clarke's line and was a strong 2 way player and Propp was a better playoff scorer later on in his career. You're almost trying to cherry pick stats.

 

[hacksaw7]

One of the things that seemed to bother me about Dionne is that is that his own lack of postseason/Cup success doesn't seem to bother him

He had an all time great...historic career. An all time great. But he never seemed to yearn for that big moment. He did his job incredibly well, most around him did not, and he was just fine. Did he ever try to get out of that situation and onto a winner?

Same thing that bothered me about Shane Doan. A good player but never cared much about winning or getting out of that horrific situation

 

[Crosstraffic]

Dionne requested a trade to a contender on March 10,1987 , ended up going to the Rangers , who were bounced in the first round by a great Flyers team. Missed the playoffs by 1 point in 87-88 and was sent to Denver in the IHL to finish his career in 88-89. From the article linked he was tired of the losing.

Clipping from The Los Angeles Times - Newspapers.com

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky had Kurri, Robitaille, Granato, Tomas Sandstrom, with Darryl Sydor, Rob Blake and Alexei Zhitnik on the back end and (much as he wasn't a particularly great goaltender, at least he was 'adequate') Kelly Hrudey.

Dionne's supporting cast consisted of Dave Taylor, Charlie Simmer, and... ??? Vachon, when he was there. In Dionne's later years Robitaille, Bernie Nicholls and Larry Murphy as young pups. Beyond that pretty much a cast of also-rans. Again, those Dionne-era Kings teams were nowhere near as deep as the teams that Gretzky played on.

I dunno if you want to go too far with this comparison. I'd actually say the supporting casts of the 1981 Kings compared to the 1993 Kings (Gretzky / Dionne aside) might actually favor the '81 Kings. It's not like the '93 Kings were a great team -- from December 12th to the end of the regular season, they were 19-27-7, and the season after the Cup run, they were a .393 club. (Not unlike the Kings' solid 1980-81 season being followed by a disaster in 1981-82.)

Check the Kings' top-3 scorers in the 1993 playoffs (each appeared in 24 games):
Gretzky: 15G + 25A = 40PTS (+6)
Sandstrom: 8G + 17A = 25PTS (-2)
Robitaille: 9G + 13A = 22PTS (-13)

Kurri and Granato had 17 points in 24 games, but a lot of those (and Sandstrom's) were against Calgary in the wild first round... in which the Kings had Robb Stauber in net.

I guess my question would be: Did Dionne ever elevate himself above his teammates in the post-season the way he did several times in the regular season? I realize it's hard to do so in one or two rounds of playoffs. But then again, here are the Kings' stats after two rounds (12 games played):
Gretzky: 8G + 15A = 23PTS (+9)
Sandstrom: 6G + 10A = 16PTS (-1)
Kurri: 6G + 6A = 12PTS (+2)
Robitaille: 5G + 7A = 12PTS (-12)

I don't "blame" Dionne, per se, for the Kings' limitations in the late-70s/early-80s playoffs, but hey, Marcel Dionne from 1978-79 through 1980-81 was a really good player. Like, all-time elite level in those three seasons. The latter of those three seasons, the Kings were up near the top of the NHL standings. And how'd he do in the playoffs those three seasons? 1 goal in ten games, and a -15. It's pretty ugly, for sure.

 

[Big Phil]

One of the things that seemed to bother me about Dionne is that is that his own lack of postseason/Cup success doesn't seem to bother him

He had an all time great...historic career. An all time great. But he never seemed to yearn for that big moment. He did his job incredibly well, most around him did not, and he was just fine. Did he ever try to get out of that situation and onto a winner?

Same thing that bothered me about Shane Doan. A good player but never cared much about winning or getting out of that horrific situation

I have talked to Dionne at a hockey memorabilia show. He blames ownership for it. Or this is what he said at least. That part is true, the Kings never had a good vision for the team. Sort of reminds me of the Miami Dolphins back in the Marino days. You have an all-time great QB and while you gave him good receivers, you never surround him with a good running game, good defense or even a great offensive line. And the Dolphins management had countless years to fix these problems and improve. Marino never went anywhere.

Dionne is the same issue here. While I would agree that it would look better if Dionne performed well in a loss (eg. 10-12 points in a 7 game series loss) the truth is they had things set up where they could have had a pretty good team. You've got the Triple Crown line already. So that's set. There is a young Larry Murphy, but you trade him away. Bernie Nicholls is there behind Dionne, but you never grab sufficient wingers post-Triple Crown until Robitaille shows up and Dionne is old. There is no defense, the goaltending was almost always horrible and you are going through coaches like a hot knife on butter. Surely having Marcel Dionne for over a decade is enough time to plan around him and build a team around him.

That being said maybe Dionne wasn't as upset about losing as he should have been. I know Darryl Sittler has said he had a tear in his eye when he saw his old buddy Lanny McDonald win the Cup. There was that passion in him for sure, maybe not as much with Dionne, I don't know.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I attached an article that I posted here in 2008 (give or take). The overall conclusion:

"One thing that helps Dionne’s case is his underrated, complete game. Obviously he wasn’t a Trottier or Clarke, but it seems like a lot of people mistakenly assume that his combination of offensive talent, small size, and low PIM totals make him a one-dimensional player. Dionne stood up for his teammates, dropped the gloves against a much tougher opponent, and played on the penalty kill. He was praised for his underrated strength by one opponent, and for his all-around game by Don Cherry. Dionne did have some great moments, including the tremendous upset against Edmonton in 1982, and practically singlehandedly winning two games against the 1976 Bruins. Dionne, when he was on top of his game, could dominate a series, and not just in the offensive zone.

At the same time, I think we can now make an argument against Dionne that’s more subtle than “he didn’t score as much as he did in the regular season”. First, Dionne and the Kings usually played very poorly in the first game of a series, often getting blown out. Winning the first game is especially important in a best-of-three/five, so a weak first game is especially dangerous. Second, Dionne played very poorly in elimination games. When the Kings needed a big effort, Dionne was usually (though not always) held off the scoresheet. Nine points in thirteen games is what you’d expect from Butch Goring, not Marcel Dionne. Finally, Dionne’s biggest problem was inconsistency. I found two or three times in his entire career when Dionne strung together two consecutive good games. The Kings often lost because their best player often disappeared for half a series at a time."