Playoff Watch 2021

[Stupendous Yappi]

Ted, I really have no idea who is taking these sides of the argument you are describing. It looks like you’re grossly exaggerating someone’s opinion and then arguing with that.

Does anyone here want to go back and argue with peoples’ impressions of the team before the season started? Almost an entire season’s worth of unpredictable stuff has occurred to modify all those expectations.

 

[Brian39]

That entire post should be framed and put in a museum as an example of "recency bias."

No shit dude. We are having a conversation about what the team is currently doing.

The conversation you were having was fully about our last 7 games and more specifically the team's failure in 1 specific game. This entire conversation is about what the team has done recently, including the post you liked about the team needing to get its shit together. Your comments/assessment of the team were in the present tense about what they are currently and recently doing. Your criticism is that they are currently floating through games, needing everything to go perfect, and pointing to a single SO loss last night to indicate that a good team would have found a way to overcome it. Incredibly, conversations about how a team is currently playing tend to focus on how a team is currently playing. Crazy.

You are turning a conversation/statement that "the team is currently playing pretty damn well" into some imagined conversation/statement that "this 7 game stretch means the team is great."

My "complaint" has nothing to do with the way we win games. It has to do with the way people want to bend over backwards to excuse losses by constantly pointing to well, we were missing _____________ when somehow, other top teams will miss guys and they still figure out how to win in spite of it

Unless it is someone on my ignore list, no one in here is making that argument. Myself, Yappi and California are all arguing that 5-0-2 is not an indication of the team struggling. That a single SO loss to the Ducks is not something to be concerned about. No one is saying anything more than "the team has played pretty damn well over the last month." No statements have been made about this stretch's predictive value moving forward.

Literally no one said that those injuries were insurmountable. We are saying that the expectation that this team must win every single game in regulation is an absurd expectation. Losing to the Ducks in a shootout after beating them Monday and being in the midst of a 7 game point streak is not in any way a mark of a poor team or a poor effort.

A team doesn't "need to get its shit together" in the midst of a 7 game points streak. Going 8-4-2 against the hardest strength of schedule in the league and doing it in spite of numerous things going wrong is not a point of concern. Those are the only things being argued.

Colorado was missing Rantanen, Saad and Grubauer when we took those games...

Either we are ignoring injuries and saying "good teams overcome it" or we're not. If you are going to take every mention of our injuries as people bending over backwards to make excuses for the team, then you don't get to hand wave away the times where we bury teams dealing with their own shit.

 

[Xerloris]

That entire post should be framed and put in a museum as an example of "recency bias."

What our per-points pace over 82 games over the last month means shit for what this team really is. Great, we've played better in the last month than we expected. Awesome, we took 2 of 3 from Colorado and split Vegas. Colorado was missing Rantanen, Saad and Grubauer when we took those games. Vegas reeled off 10 straight after they lost to us. Remember, we lost on the 14th with Colorado reportedly feeling like complete shit after getting vaccinated. We then pissed away the game to Arizona 3 days later knowing it was critical to helping our playoff chances and we pissed it away after taking a 2-0 lead through 20 minutes. We then pissed away the Colorado game on the 22nd with us having had days to practice and purportedly refocus, and Colorado being shut down and then missing Rantanen and Grubauer and having to start Devan Dubnyk. But, I'm sure those losses don't count and we can ignore them because ... reasons.

We're 8-4-2 in the last month, so hurray us! Vegas is 13-3-0. Minnesota is 10-3-3. Colorado is 9-5-0 with 3 of those losses sans their 1C and 1G. I can't wait to hear how our 8-4-2 is more meaningful, more significant, because ... reasons. We're also 9-9-2 against playoff teams. It's the worst record record among the top-4 in the West. But hey, 8-4-2 in the last month, amirite?

My "complaint" has nothing to do with the way we win games. It has to do with the way people want to bend over backwards to excuse losses by constantly pointing to well, we were missing _____________ when somehow, other top teams will miss guys and they still figure out how to win in spite of it. It's how some want to pretend every win was significant, important, the be-all, end-all, no-bullshit game everyone should bank on. As regards the Anaheim game, it's how missing Tarasenko - who has 4 goals all year, 2 in the last month - and then Dunn and Krug - both who can produce offense but are noted defensive liabilities at times - are together such a critical loss we couldn't possibly overcome and it's a make-or-break thing to whether we can beat the worst team in the division.

I'm all for cheerleading for this team, being optimistic about its chances. But holy shit, let's stay grounded in reality in the process. Let's quit cherry-picking what's important and what's not depending on what team we're talking about, and let's quit pretending that the last X games [ignoring the ones that don't count because ... reasons] is the real, true sign of what this team is going to do, when we've got 51 games to date that show this team has no consistency other than inconsistency.

I notice you're giving the Avs a pass because of injuries but the Blues don't get the same benefit.

 

[BlueMed]

I'm still perplexed about why people get so caught up in regular season success. Veteran teams know that energy is better spent in the playoffs, and the goal of the regular season is just to get in. When the playoffs start, I guarantee that the Blues will come out hitting, and that's when our game is truly effective. It's just impossible and senseless to start the hitting now when things don't really matter...

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I'm still perplexed about why people get so caught up in regular season success. Veteran teams know that energy is better spent in the playoffs, and the goal of the regular season is just to get in. When the playoffs start, I guarantee that the Blues will come out hitting, and that's when our game is truly effective. It's just impossible and senseless to start the hitting now when things don't really matter...

I’ve been thinking about this exact thing for awhile now. The 2010’s Kings literally did not care about the regular season at all. They just did enough to get in, and then they’d do their thing.

Our style of play that’s most effective would’ve had us completely gassed during this 56 game condensed schedule. I think we’ll see a team on a mission in a week and a half when playoffs start.

 

[Fez Whatley]

Eh I'd like to think blooze are the kings of old, but last post season was pretty shitty with regards to playing "their" game. Hopefully it was just that they were in the bubble and it was an odd post season.

 

[Majorityof1]

I'm still perplexed about why people get so caught up in regular season success. Veteran teams know that energy is better spent in the playoffs, and the goal of the regular season is just to get in. When the playoffs start, I guarantee that the Blues will come out hitting, and that's when our game is truly effective. It's just impossible and senseless to start the hitting now when things don't really matter...

Ah the mythical switch. Just wait until the playoffs start, and any middling team's fans are talking about the switch. "We can just flip a switch and start playing the right way. " It would be nice. Unfortunately, the switch doesn't exist. Teams can get hot going into the playoffs. Teams built for playoff style hockey, or with coaches who can gameplan well in a series can do better. But its not a switch they can flip. There is a ramp up during the regular season so they can hit their stride.

Even then, the higher seeds usually win. From 1994-2020, the #7 or #8 seed has won the Stanley cup only once (1). Only one (1) #6 seed has ever won. Only Two (2) #5 seeds have ever won.
One of the 5 seeds was us, and we were tied with Winnipeg in points, but lost the tiebreaker.

A #1 or #2 seed has won it 16 times (from 2016-2019, seeds were by division - these numbers are based on where they finished in conference regardless of division). A top 4 seed has won a 22 times in 26 years, or 85% of the time. If I was a betting man, and I am. I'd take the 1-4 seeds against the 5-8 at even odds every time, and I'd bet BIG.

Even those few teams didn't just flip a switch at playoff time. They were playing good hockey leading up to the playoffs. The Blues notoriously tore up the back half of the season, and were one of the best teams in the league over that stretch. The 2011 and 14 Kings are the lowest seeds to win over that time frame. 2011 Kings either won or went to OT/SO in 12 of their last 15. The 2014 Kings in 10 of their last 15, but had an 8 game winning streak prior to that (so like 18 of last 23).

So in summary, the regular season does seem to matter. But how the lower seeds play leading up to the playoffs also matter. None of this disqualifies us. We are playing pretty well right now, at least getting points. Also, one common factor among low seeds winning is an unbelievably hot goalie (Binnington, Quickx2, and Brodeur). We have a guy who can do it, who literally did it before. So if Binner gets hot, all bets are off.

 

[BlueMed]

Ah the mythical switch. Just wait until the playoffs start, and any middling team's fans are talking about the switch. "We can just flip a switch and start playing the right way. " It would be nice. Unfortunately, the switch doesn't exist. Teams can get hot going into the playoffs. Teams built for playoff style hockey, or with coaches who can gameplan well in a series can do better. But its not a switch they can flip. There is a ramp up during the regular season so they can hit their stride.

Even then, the higher seeds usually win. From 1994-2020, the #7 or #8 seed has won the Stanley cup only once (1). Only one (1) #6 seed has ever won. Only Two (2) #5 seeds have ever won.
One of the 5 seeds was us, and we were tied with Winnipeg in points, but lost the tiebreaker.

A #1 or #2 seed has won it 16 times (from 2016-2019, seeds were by division - these numbers are based on where they finished in conference regardless of division). A top 4 seed has won a 22 times in 26 years, or 85% of the time. If I was a betting man, and I am. I'd take the 1-4 seeds against the 5-8 at even odds every time, and I'd bet BIG.

Even those few teams didn't just flip a switch at playoff time. They were playing good hockey leading up to the playoffs. The Blues notoriously tore up the back half of the season, and were one of the best teams in the league over that stretch. The 2011 and 14 Kings are the lowest seeds to win over that time frame. 2011 Kings either won or went to OT/SO in 12 of their last 15. The 2014 Kings in 10 of their last 15, but had an 8 game winning streak prior to that (so like 18 of last 23).

So in summary, the regular season does seem to matter. But how the lower seeds play leading up to the playoffs also matter. None of this disqualifies us. We are playing pretty well right now, at least getting points. Also, one common factor among low seeds winning is an unbelievably hot goalie (Binnington, Quickx2, and Brodeur). We have a guy who can do it, who literally did it before. So if Binner gets hot, all bets are off.

You can look throughout hockey history, but every team and era is unique in some way. The Hitchcock Blues overachieved in the regular season and were outclassed and spent in the playoffs. This team is currently built much more similar to the Kings, which require a heavier and physical style to be successful. Sure the Kings had to win tight games, but that was their style of play to begin with. That also happens to be the style built for playoff success.

 

[Stealth JD]

If that holds up, and if they seed the playoff teams the same as they usually do for the draft, that means we'll either be picking at 17 or in the Final 4.

Arizona will forfeit their top pick...so it could actually end up as high as the 16th player selected (in the 17th spot - depending on how they handle that forfeiture).

 

[Brian39]

Ah the mythical switch. Just wait until the playoffs start, and any middling team's fans are talking about the switch. "We can just flip a switch and start playing the right way. " It would be nice. Unfortunately, the switch doesn't exist. Teams can get hot going into the playoffs. Teams built for playoff style hockey, or with coaches who can gameplan well in a series can do better. But its not a switch they can flip. There is a ramp up during the regular season so they can hit their stride.

Even then, the higher seeds usually win. From 1994-2020, the #7 or #8 seed has won the Stanley cup only once (1). Only one (1) #6 seed has ever won. Only Two (2) #5 seeds have ever won.
One of the 5 seeds was us, and we were tied with Winnipeg in points, but lost the tiebreaker.

A #1 or #2 seed has won it 16 times (from 2016-2019, seeds were by division - these numbers are based on where they finished in conference regardless of division). A top 4 seed has won a 22 times in 26 years, or 85% of the time. If I was a betting man, and I am. I'd take the 1-4 seeds against the 5-8 at even odds every time, and I'd bet BIG.

Even those few teams didn't just flip a switch at playoff time. They were playing good hockey leading up to the playoffs. The Blues notoriously tore up the back half of the season, and were one of the best teams in the league over that stretch. The 2011 and 14 Kings are the lowest seeds to win over that time frame. 2011 Kings either won or went to OT/SO in 12 of their last 15. The 2014 Kings in 10 of their last 15, but had an 8 game winning streak prior to that (so like 18 of last 23).

So in summary, the regular season does seem to matter. But how the lower seeds play leading up to the playoffs also matter. None of this disqualifies us. We are playing pretty well right now, at least getting points. Also, one common factor among low seeds winning is an unbelievably hot goalie (Binnington, Quickx2, and Brodeur). We have a guy who can do it, who literally did it before. So if Binner gets hot, all bets are off.

I partially agree with a lot of this, but I disagree with the notion that teams can't flip a switch. There are plenty of examples of teams coasting to/at the end and then flipping the switch. The 2015 Hawks dropped 4 straight to end the season before looking exactly like the cap-dynasty Hawks in the playoffs. They also went 2-2-1 to close 2013. The Kings went 1-2-2 to close 2014. Good teams can turn it on and off in the regular season, throw some games in the garbage down the stretch and then flip a switch for the playoffs. Teams with a cushion to make the playoffs have the luxury to coast through stretches of the regular season while bubble teams generally can't afford to do that since their playoff hopes are still in doubt.

This season is a strange year in the sense that our playoff hopes were barely in real danger throughout this year. We were comfortably in a spot for the first half of the year. We were 7 points up in the standings just before that brutal stretch of 2 wins in 14 games and only 5 points out at our worst. We were sitting in a playoff spot on 4/1/21. Then 5 points out on 4/6/21 and back in a playoff spot by 4/10/21. For as bad as we have been for stretches, playoffs were only very briefly in real danger the way they are for most bubble teams. When we were out of a playoff spot for the last month, we had multiple games in hand and were up in points percentage. It has led to a split in people thinking that we are playing to the best of our ability and failing vs not getting up for games. I can't think of many examples like it.

I say all of this because I honestly don't believe that teams carry momentum from the regular season into the playoffs and that flipping a switch is a very real thing. To me, the question isn't "does the switch exist" but is rather, "is this a good team that has played below their ability or a mediocre team that doesn't have another gear?" I think there is reasonable support for both arguments.

Argument 1: This is a good team that has played below their ability

• 14 guys on the expected playoff roster won a Cup 23 months ago and that list includes our starting goalie, the playoff MVP and 8 of the team's top 10 playoff scorers.
• We know the goalie Binner can be. And no one seems to be talking about it, but he's rocking a .925 since the start of April
• The on-ice product is encouraging lately. The coaching staff finally figured out the guys who should be on the top PP unit and it is best in the league since (11 game sample).
• Parayko is the heart of the D and he is looking more and more like himself every night. 4/29/21 was the first time he cleared 21 minutes since 2/8/21. He was averaging 19:52 in the first 8 games of his return from injury. He is up to 23:01 in the games since and we are 7-2-3 in games he plays 21 minutes or more.
• Tarasenko was -8 in his first 14 games back and is +1 in his last 10. The team went 2-8-4 in that first stretch and is 7-3-0 in the second. Massive production hasn't arrived, but the rest of his game is rounding into form. He might not be an elite scoring threat in the playoffs, but he should be a legit secondary threat that isn't a horrific liability. That hasn't been the case for 80% of the season so far.
• Injuries and COVID at least somewhat have derailed this team. Injuries have been brutal this year and have objectively impacted the team. COVID magnified this because pretty much every time we started finding a groove we had our schedule thrown in to chaos. We could have wilted a month ago, but instead came together and have gone 8-3-2 against mostly playoff teams. This stretch has coincided with Parayko/Tarasenko/Binner rounding into form and are an accurate reflection of this team.

Argument 2: This team isn't constructed well and the recent stretch of good play is just a short-lived streak

• Too much of the Cup core is gone. Petro, Bo, Steen, Eddy, Maroon, Gunnar, Sunny and Allen made up a huge part of the leadership group, but more importantly made up an even bigger part of the defensive core of this team. 4 of the 7 D used in the Cup run are gone and that includes 3 of the 4 most-played D men. 3 of our top 4 forward penalty killers aren't here and the top 2 D penalty killers are gone. The Cup team was a defensive juggernaut and it is no where close to that anymore.
• Do we know who Binner is? We know who he can be, but who will he be over the next month+? He was the worst goalie in the league last playoffs and he has been inconsistent this year.
• Parayko and Tarasenko still don't look anything close to the way they did in 2019 and time is running out. There is little reason to believe that they wil suddenly be monsters when the playoffs start next week and this team isn't capable of winning the Cup if Parayko is just an adequate top 4 D man and Tarasenko is a secondary threat.
• Injuries and COVID are excuses to justify a defensively poor team that isn't built to play the coach's style. We are built to play fast, high event hockey and the coach keeps trying to fit square pegs into the round hole of his system. We aren't built to succeed with the system that won a Cup and the coach doesn't know how to build a system that fits the players he has.
• The current stretch of good play has still resulted in us losing ground on the team we'll play in round 1. We're not as bad as our low points this season, but even the high points aren't good enough to beat Vegas/Colorado.

I think that there is support for every bullet point for both arguments and ultimately I don't think anyone can know which argument is closer to the truth. That's why they play the games.

 

[Majorityof1]

I partially agree with a lot of this, but I disagree with the notion that teams can't flip a switch. There are plenty of examples of teams coasting to/at the end and then flipping the switch. The 2015 Hawks dropped 4 straight to end the season before looking exactly like the cap-dynasty Hawks in the playoffs. They also went 2-2-1 to close 2013. The Kings went 1-2-2 to close 2014. Good teams can turn it on and off in the regular season, throw some games in the garbage down the stretch and then flip a switch for the playoffs. Teams with a cushion to make the playoffs have the luxury to coast through stretches of the regular season while bubble teams generally can't afford to do that since their playoff hopes are still in doubt.

This season is a strange year in the sense that our playoff hopes were barely in real danger throughout this year. We were comfortably in a spot for the first half of the year. We were 7 points up in the standings just before that brutal stretch of 2 wins in 14 games and only 5 points out at our worst. We were sitting in a playoff spot on 4/1/21. Then 5 points out on 4/6/21 and back in a playoff spot by 4/10/21. For as bad as we have been for stretches, playoffs were only very briefly in real danger the way they are for most bubble teams. When we were out of a playoff spot for the last month, we had multiple games in hand and were up in points percentage. It has led to a split in people thinking that we are playing to the best of our ability and failing vs not getting up for games. I can't think of many examples like it.

I say all of this because I honestly don't believe that teams carry momentum from the regular season into the playoffs and that flipping a switch is a very real thing. To me, the question isn't "does the switch exist" but is rather, "is this a good team that has played below their ability or a mediocre team that doesn't have another gear?" I think there is reasonable support for both arguments.

Argument 1: This is a good team that has played below their ability

• 14 guys on the expected playoff roster won a Cup 23 months ago and that list includes our starting goalie, the playoff MVP and 8 of the team's top 10 playoff scorers.
• We know the goalie Binner can be. And no one seems to be talking about it, but he's rocking a .925 since the start of April
• The on-ice product is encouraging lately. The coaching staff finally figured out the guys who should be on the top PP unit and it is best in the league since (11 game sample).
• Parayko is the heart of the D and he is looking more and more like himself every night. 4/29/21 was the first time he cleared 21 minutes since 2/8/21. He was averaging 19:52 in the first 8 games of his return from injury. He is up to 23:01 in the games since and we are 7-2-3 in games he plays 21 minutes or more.
• Tarasenko was -8 in his first 14 games back and is +1 in his last 10. The team went 2-8-4 in that first stretch and is 7-3-0 in the second. Massive production hasn't arrived, but the rest of his game is rounding into form. He might not be an elite scoring threat in the playoffs, but he should be a legit secondary threat that isn't a horrific liability. That hasn't been the case for 80% of the season so far.
• Injuries and COVID at least somewhat have derailed this team. Injuries have been brutal this year and have objectively impacted the team. COVID magnified this because pretty much every time we started finding a groove we had our schedule thrown in to chaos. We could have wilted a month ago, but instead came together and have gone 8-3-2 against mostly playoff teams. This stretch has coincided with Parayko/Tarasenko/Binner rounding into form and are an accurate reflection of this team.

Argument 2: This team isn't constructed well and the recent stretch of good play is just a short-lived streak

• Too much of the Cup core is gone. Petro, Bo, Steen, Eddy, Maroon, Gunnar, Sunny and Allen made up a huge part of the leadership group, but more importantly made up an even bigger part of the defensive core of this team. 4 of the 7 D used in the Cup run are gone and that includes 3 of the 4 most-played D men. 3 of our top 4 forward penalty killers aren't here and the top 2 D penalty killers are gone. The Cup team was a defensive juggernaut and it is no where close to that anymore.
• Do we know who Binner is? We know who he can be, but who will he be over the next month+? He was the worst goalie in the league last playoffs and he has been inconsistent this year.
• Parayko and Tarasenko still don't look anything close to the way they did in 2019 and time is running out. There is little reason to believe that they wil suddenly be monsters when the playoffs start next week and this team isn't capable of winning the Cup if Parayko is just an adequate top 4 D man and Tarasenko is a secondary threat.
• Injuries and COVID are excuses to justify a defensively poor team that isn't built to play the coach's style. We are built to play fast, high event hockey and the coach keeps trying to fit square pegs into the round hole of his system. We aren't built to succeed with the system that won a Cup and the coach doesn't know how to build a system that fits the players he has.
• The current stretch of good play has still resulted in us losing ground on the team we'll play in round 1. We're not as bad as our low points this season, but even the high points aren't good enough to beat Vegas/Colorado.

I think that there is support for every bullet point for both arguments and ultimately I don't think anyone can know which argument is closer to the truth. That's why they play the games.

There is a difference between a 4 game stretch of poor play, then getting back to your top form as opposed to being a mediocre team for an entire regular season then suddenly being a juggernaut. The mythical switch is generally used to talk about the latter. I have no issue with a dominant regular season team stumbling down the stretch and then getting back to form. The '13 Hawks won the President's trophy by 7 points in a shortened season. They were the definition of dominant in the regular season despite the last couple games. They may have been resting people during that poor stretch as the #1 seed was locked up.

Sure '15 Chicago dropped the last 4, but they put up 102 in the first 78. I was talking about a switch for a team that never played like a contender in the regular season in any fashion suddenly becoming dominant. The Hawks would have won a strong Central had they won those games instead, so they were always a contender.

The '15 Hawks also needed to ramp up IN the playoffs. They lost 3+ or went to multiple OTs in 4 of the first 5 games. It doesn't take much to envision that series going differently if Nashville grabs one or both of those multi-OT games. It wasn't until they smashed the Wild that they really settled in.

The '14 Kings may be the exception that proves the rule. As I said, a hot goalie can change everything. They are definitely the best example looking at the standings and box scores. I don't remember enough about their year to say what changed. But I did point out they had a pretty dominant stretch near the end of the season winning 15 of 19. Then they were bad for several games, including getting crushed the first 2 and dropping the first 3 of the playoffs. They were also never dominant in the playoffs either needed 7 rounds the first 3 series and a few multiple OT wins in the finals. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this one. Regardless, one example in 26 years is long odds.

 

[Xerloris]

There is a difference between a 4 game stretch of poor play, then getting back to your top form as opposed to being a mediocre team for an entire regular season then suddenly being a juggernaut. The mythical switch is generally used to talk about the latter. I have no issue with a dominant regular season team stumbling down the stretch and then getting back to form. The '13 Hawks won the President's trophy by 7 points in a shortened season. They were the definition of dominant in the regular season despite the last couple games. They may have been resting people during that poor stretch as the #1 seed was locked up.

Sure '15 Chicago dropped the last 4, but they put up 102 in the first 78. I was talking about a switch for a team that never played like a contender in the regular season in any fashion suddenly becoming dominant. The Hawks would have won a strong Central had they won those games instead, so they were always a contender.

The '15 Hawks also needed to ramp up IN the playoffs. They lost 3+ or went to multiple OTs in 4 of the first 5 games. It doesn't take much to envision that series going differently if Nashville grabs one or both of those multi-OT games. It wasn't until they smashed the Wild that they really settled in.

The '14 Kings may be the exception that proves the rule. As I said, a hot goalie can change everything. They are definitely the best example looking at the standings and box scores. I don't remember enough about their year to say what changed. But I did point out they had a pretty dominant stretch near the end of the season winning 15 of 19. Then they were bad for several games, including getting crushed the first 2 and dropping the first 3 of the playoffs. They were also never dominant in the playoffs either needed 7 rounds the first 3 series and a few multiple OT wins in the finals. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this one. Regardless, one example in 26 years is long odds.

Why is it ok for a team to lose when they sit players for a rest but not ok for the Blues to lose when they're decimated by injury?

 

[Majorityof1]

Why is it ok for a team to lose when they sit players for a rest but not ok for the Blues to lose when they're decimated by injury?

Because those players come back rested. Injured players come back rusty. If the injured players are starting to find their groove, that could be a reason a low seed can do damage in the playoffs. But that is not a switch. That takes a slow ramp up. To be fair, I think that is happening for us. Whether its enough to carry us far

My contention has never been that a mediocre regular season precludes a team from doing well. My contention is that you shouldn't ignore the regular season. The good teams regular season teams generally win. For struggling teams that do well, there are generally signs in the regular season that they could do damage in the playoffs. Its exceptionally rare for a team to play mediocre for the full regular season, then make a run deep in the playoffs. Its not impossible, its just rare.

If a team shows signs of life down the stretch or gets some key players back who are starting to gel or gets a hot goalie, then there is a reason to ignore the regular season. But just saying "Pfft, regular season doesn't matter, smart teams know how to give minimal effort and turn it on" is just not borne out by the facts.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Can we remove LOL since they have clinched now?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Clinched with 4 games left. Ideal for resting guys, maybe getting Kostin a couple games. But it’s not such a long time that the team will get flat or develop bad habits.

The Blues will definitely be the underdog vs either Colorado or Vegas. But they are good enough they could beat either team in a 7 game series.

 

[MissouriMook]

 

[joe galiba]

my Angel’s Envy is tasting even better!

 

[mike1320]

my Angel’s Envy is tasting even better!

Knob Creek in my glass. Cheers!

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Can we remove LOL since they have clinched now?

Lol @ the lol as of 5/7

 

[Ridge1982]

Bleh

 

[Ridge1982]

 

[thedustman]

View attachment 431234

This is worthy of playoff avatar type attitude if you ask me

 

[thedustman]

View attachment 431236

Also worthy for playoff avatar

 

[Novacain]

Can we remove LOL since they have clinched now?

Are you even familiar with this forums most legendary thread?

 

[Brian39]

There is a difference between a 4 game stretch of poor play, then getting back to your top form as opposed to being a mediocre team for an entire regular season then suddenly being a juggernaut. The mythical switch is generally used to talk about the latter. I have no issue with a dominant regular season team stumbling down the stretch and then getting back to form. The '13 Hawks won the President's trophy by 7 points in a shortened season. They were the definition of dominant in the regular season despite the last couple games. They may have been resting people during that poor stretch as the #1 seed was locked up.

Sure '15 Chicago dropped the last 4, but they put up 102 in the first 78. I was talking about a switch for a team that never played like a contender in the regular season in any fashion suddenly becoming dominant. The Hawks would have won a strong Central had they won those games instead, so they were always a contender.

The '15 Hawks also needed to ramp up IN the playoffs. They lost 3+ or went to multiple OTs in 4 of the first 5 games. It doesn't take much to envision that series going differently if Nashville grabs one or both of those multi-OT games. It wasn't until they smashed the Wild that they really settled in.

The '14 Kings may be the exception that proves the rule. As I said, a hot goalie can change everything. They are definitely the best example looking at the standings and box scores. I don't remember enough about their year to say what changed. But I did point out they had a pretty dominant stretch near the end of the season winning 15 of 19. Then they were bad for several games, including getting crushed the first 2 and dropping the first 3 of the playoffs. They were also never dominant in the playoffs either needed 7 rounds the first 3 series and a few multiple OT wins in the finals. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this one. Regardless, one example in 26 years is long odds.

If the switch refers not to changing end of year momentum, but jumping from middling through the year to good in the playoffs, then the 2012 Kings absolutely qualify.

The 2012 Kings were not good all year. They fired their coach mid-season and finished 8th despite playing in a laughingstock Pacific division. They won a total of 40 games, didn't see much improvement after the new coach took over and all of this was with Quick being a top 5 NHL goalie all year (.929 through 68 starts for the season). They went 5-2-3 down the stretch, which isn't all that special. I mentioned earlier that I have been listening to old MvsW episodes lately. I'm in March of 2012 and any tie they have made playoff predictions they both were writing the Kings off.

And then the Kings demolished the league in the playoffs, losing just 2 games over 3 series vs the West on the way to the Cup Final. They were a drastically different team than they were in the regular season. Quick was great in the playoffs, but he was also great in the regular season. The difference is that they went from scoring 2.29 goals a game in the regular season to 2.85 goals a night in the playoffs.

I think you and I have pretty similar attitudes about this current Blues team. I will be (extremely pleasantly) surprised if we win 3 or even 4 rounds, but I don't think that it would be an unprecedented "flipped switch" if it were to happen. We had stretches of solid play to start and end the year. 10-5-2 in our first 17 and 8-3-3 in our last 14 are both good stretches that show sustained periods of resembling a good team. That's 60% of the season played so far.