Your Unpopular Hockey Opinions-LA Kings Fans Version

[Fishhead]

A few articles on top drafting teams:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/break...dle-of-the-best-and-worst-drafting-teams.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2104441-ranking-the-10-best-drafting-teams-in-the-nhl

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/4/13/2936786/evaluating-the-draft-a-new-methodolgy

They use various analytics, but the Kings are routinely top 5 in most rankings. The Kings weaknesses, surprisingly is post-first round drafting. Well, sort of. They are middle of the pack. But because the Kings retain and develop their own prospects more than any other team by a pretty good margin, some of their players would have seen time on lesser teams.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

I thought LA should have run over Patrick Roy after the wink at Sandstrom..... and make it blatant.

 

[agentfouser]

A few articles on top drafting teams:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/break...dle-of-the-best-and-worst-drafting-teams.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2104441-ranking-the-10-best-drafting-teams-in-the-nhl

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/4/13/2936786/evaluating-the-draft-a-new-methodolgy

They use various analytics, but the Kings are routinely top 5 in most rankings. The Kings weaknesses, surprisingly is post-first round drafting. Well, sort of. They are middle of the pack. But because the Kings retain and develop their own prospects more than any other team by a pretty good margin, some of their players would have seen time on lesser teams.

The first article only shows which teams have the most players who have played one or one hundred games in the NHL. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're better because it doesn't take into account the rate at which our players make it to the NHL. We put a lot of resources into drafting, accumulating picks and making more picks than other clubs for quite a few years there. As such, having more of our draftees in the NHL in absolute terms is exactly what you'd expect. We don't know if we are relatively better or worse from that.

The second article shows essentially the same thing. The only metric that ranks the teams are how many games draftees have played, not whether teams are consistently able to make better selections than other and therefore get a higher rate of return on their picks. Indeed, the blurb for the Kings is one of only ones that includes anything sophisticated than that:

NHL GP 2003-13: 5,428. Bader has the Kings graduating 31.8 percent of their picks to 50 NHL games, with 15.2 percent making it all the way to 200 games. Both figures are average, but the Kings make their strong showing based on elite-level talents like Doughty and Kopitar.

Emphasis added. Our rate of return, that is, our success per draft pick, is about average.

The third one has the most complex methodology, but I'd argue that its treatment of the Kings is in the end the same as the first two. It uses a system of points to assess the success of players who have made the NHL, from .25 given for an AHL callup to 6 for a superstar. And, that system (in 2012) put us third, with over 60 points. But... it also includes our overall rate of success, that is, how many of our draftees make it to the NHL. And in that category, we're 18th, just a bit below average.

All of this points to my original observation: we do not draft especially well. We're not terrible, either; we're average at converting picks into players, maybe a tick above average. Our success has come because we invested team assets into the draft and DRAFTED A LOT OF PLAYERS. This is obviously an unpopular opinion because it violates the Lombardi mythology of draft-table soothsaying, but I actually take comfort in it. It means that we don't need to hit home runs at the draft table to be successful, and that the pursuit of quality in the game is a relatively rational, straightforward thing. You invest in the draft and you'll get returns. We did, and were rewarded, at a perfectly fair rate.

 

[Fishhead]

The first article only shows which teams have the most players who have played one or one hundred games in the NHL. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're better because it doesn't take into account the rate at which our players make it to the NHL. We put a lot of resources into drafting, accumulating picks and making more picks than other clubs for quite a few years there. As such, having more of our draftees in the NHL in absolute terms is exactly what you'd expect. We don't know if we are relatively better or worse from that.

The second article shows essentially the same thing. The only metric that ranks the teams are how many games draftees have played, not whether teams are consistently able to make better selections than other and therefore get a higher rate of return on their picks. Indeed, the blurb for the Kings is one of only ones that includes anything sophisticated than that: Emphasis added. Our rate of return, that is, our success per draft pick, is about average.

The third one has the most complex methodology, but I'd argue that its treatment of the Kings is in the end the same as the first two. It uses a system of points to assess the success of players who have made the NHL, from .25 given for an AHL callup to 6 for a superstar. And, that system (in 2012) put us third, with over 60 points. But... it also includes our overall rate of success, that is, how many of our draftees make it to the NHL. And in that category, we're 18th, just a bit below average.

All of this points to my original observation: we do not draft especially well. We're not terrible, either; we're average at converting picks into players, maybe a tick above average. Our success has come because we invested team assets into the draft and DRAFTED A LOT OF PLAYERS. This is obviously an unpopular opinion because it violates the Lombardi mythology of draft-table soothsaying, but I actually take comfort in it. It means that we don't need to hit home runs at the draft table to be successful, and that the pursuit of quality in the game is a relatively rational, straightforward thing. You invest in the draft and you'll get returns. We did, and were rewarded, at a perfectly fair rate.

I don't think its an unpopular opinion at all, it's well based in fact. The Kings, at producing players, are average, or slightly above average.

But what puts them in the top, and makes them better than nearly every other team in the league, is two main other parts of drafting. Obviously, they have located and drafted elite players. Notably a centerman, defensman, and goalie. I cannot think of any other team recently who has done this.

What the Kings excel at is drafting players that fit exactly what they are trying to accomplish. The guys they draft are team guys. Kings guys. The only other team that rivals the Kings in this regard is Chicago. They draft for speed, scoring, desire to win. The Kings draft for leadership, commitment, responsibility, and difficult to play against. It's what puts those two teams in the upper echelon and is a big reason for their success.

 

[jace29]

if we trade martinez, it will prove to be a mistake.

 

[agentfouser]

I don't think its an unpopular opinion at all, it's well based in fact. The Kings, at producing players, are average, or slightly above average.

But what puts them in the top, and makes them better than nearly every other team in the league, is two main other parts of drafting. Obviously, they have located and drafted elite players. Notably a centerman, defensman, and goalie. I cannot think of any other team recently who has done this.

What the Kings excel at is drafting players that fit exactly what they are trying to accomplish. The guys they draft are team guys. Kings guys. The only other team that rivals the Kings in this regard is Chicago. They draft for speed, scoring, desire to win. The Kings draft for leadership, commitment, responsibility, and difficult to play against. It's what puts those two teams in the upper echelon and is a big reason for their success.

Well, I definitely think it's true, but you also have to admit that quite a mythology has developed around Lombardi. Anytime I make this point, here, on reddit, on twitter, wherever, I'm met with looks of disbelief and people saying how many draftees have been important for us. I think most fans have forgotten (or never realized) how devoted we were to the draft.

And yes, I agree that Lombardi's real skill boils down to creating a team and a culture. The last season's troubles notwithstanding, I think he has a good grasp of the value of players as commodities, but his view that culture, attitude, leadership, camaraderie, and fit are undervalued aspects of players is at the root of our success. His players generally seem to--or at least can--be more than the sum of their parts.

 

[Butch 19]

I thought LA should have run over Patrick Roy after the wink at Sandstrom..... and make it blatant.

agree100%.

and even moreso after the cheapshot on Storr. The Kings should have run Fuhr, 100% intentional. That was the game I realized that Robinson had no business being a coach. You HAVE to run the other goalie after something that blatant.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Well, I definitely think it's true, but you also have to admit that quite a mythology has developed around Lombardi. Anytime I make this point, here, on reddit, on twitter, wherever, I'm met with looks of disbelief and people saying how many draftees have been important for us. I think most fans have forgotten (or never realized) how devoted we were to the draft.

And yes, I agree that Lombardi's real skill boils down to creating a team and a culture. The last season's troubles notwithstanding, I think he has a good grasp of the value of players as commodities, but his view that culture, attitude, leadership, camaraderie, and fit are undervalued aspects of players is at the root of our success. His players generally seem to--or at least can--be more than the sum of their parts.

Going back to when I first brought it up I can't find the article I was looking for and there have a been a few posted that show otherwise so I concede, I could have sworn there was more to it. I remember reading we were a top-5/10 drafting team and that our development was tops no question, but note to self--use bookmarks.

I don't think anyone forgets how we threw ourselves at the draft--anyone remember the Thomas Hickey draft party? lol--but we're certainly not the only team to use that approach, and I guess we'll really only see in the coming years what we are made of. Though I 100% agree that DL, Futa and co. are committed to drafting "kings-type" players.

 

[Little Psycho]

Well here it goes...
1) One of Nolan or Clifford should go. Don't need both.
2) Bottom six scares the crap out of me, no goal scorers just grinders.
3) Dwight King is a frustrating player, sometimes I enjoy he's on the team but most of the time I want him gone.
4) Greene is slow and can't keep up with the play anymore but since we lost a lot of leadership this off season he ain't going anywhere.
5) Carter needs an "A"
6) Dean should have signed Sekera
7) Confused about the Voynov situation....will he be the old Slava if he returns? He would be good for the team if he comes back but I dislike him as person and what he did was disgusting.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Jeff Carter was a better player than Anze Kopitar last season and was not a 2C, but a 1B.

 

[Zero Pucks Given]

Giving this one a shot...

Brown is going to retire a King.
McBain is underrated.
Sharks will enter the 2015-2016 season just as pissed as the Kings.
Lucic is actually worth every penny (and he'll prove it).

 

[member 88115]

This should be easy

Voynov will retire as a King.
Andy A will become our new 4th line left winger (Clifford will be traded)
Weal will center our third line
Forbert will start the season with Muzzin to balance out the D pairings.

 

[member 88115]

Oh btw, Gaborik will be traded next year

 

[Herby]

Dave Taylor doesn't get enough credit for the Kings Stanley Cup wins.

It was definitely time for Dave to move on, but people conveniently forget he drafted Kopitar, Quick and Brown. The Kings 2005 draft was equally as great as their 2003 was bad.

 

[417th]

Jeff Carter was a better player than Anze Kopitar last season and was not a 2C, but a 1B.

Here here.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Jeff Carter was a better player than Anze Kopitar last season and was not a 2C, but a 1B.

Kopitar might've been the 4th best forward on the team last year. Pound for pound, bang for the buck, maybe even lower than that.

 

[scramble91]

Kopitar might've been the 4th best forward on the team last year. Pound for pound, bang for the buck, maybe even lower than that.

I don't agree with this at all. Statistically and visually he still was the best on the team in my opinion.

I don't disagree that Carter played well, but he doesn't get the heavy minutes against the other teams best defensive players.

It's all opinion but I don't see how he was the 4th best forward. Did he have a down year? Yea, but still led the team in points even with his craptacular amount of shots.


Forgot to add my unpopular opinion.....which is Martinez is a bottom pairing dman.

 

[The Night King]

Oh btw, Gaborik will be traded next year

So we're tanking now? We don't have a first round pick.

 

[KINGS17]

There will be another lockout when this CBA expires.

The owners will try to eliminate the guaranteed long term contracts their GMs have handed out to players that are in the range of 30 years of age. The GMs have no discipline, and simply can't help themselves.

 

[Herby]

There will be another lockout when this CBA expires.

The owners will try to eliminate the guaranteed long term contracts their GMs have handed out to players that are in the range of 30 years of age. The GMs have no discipline, and simply can't help themselves.

I doubt they go after fully guaranteed contracts for all players. I think you will see more compliance buyout options with perhaps the team only eating half the contract.

I think the NHLPA has to be realistic and accept that there has to be a way that teams can be rid themselves of contracts like the Richards one.

 

[apadilla]

The Kings need another big tough guy. Yes we just traded for Lucic, but we don't want Lucic fighting the likes of John Scott, Brian McGratton, Luke Gadzik, etc... We need a new big guy to take on these critters. The Kings could also bring up Bizz on occasion, as he will be close by when trouble starts brewing.

Note: The point is, the tough guy is not yet out of the NHL. The Kings shouldn't ignore this facet. This was also mentioned before last season started with SJ signing John Scott. And we all know how last season ended. And now our cross town rivals have added McGratton. This must be answered.

 

[Reclamation Project]

I don't want any Kings fighting anyone. It's a talent league.

What do John Scott, Brian McGratton, and Luke Gadzik (two of which I had to Google) have in common? All plugs.

Teams in the division are signing these cave dwellers because the Kings got a real tough guy who can actually play the game.

 

[apadilla]

I don't want any Kings fighting anyone. It's a talent league.

What do John Scott, Brian McGratton, and Luke Gadzik (two of which I had to Google) have in common? All plugs.

Teams in the division are signing these cave dwellers because the Kings got a real tough guy who can actually play the game.

Hense we go back to: The Kings need another big tough guy. Yes we just traded for Lucic, but we don't want Lucic fighting the likes of John Scott, Brian McGratton, Luke Gadzik, etc...

 

[Reclamation Project]

I don't want any fighting.

 

[Jeff18]

Chicago and Tampa Bay did not carry guys who only fight on their team. We don't need a talentless goon; this entire league does not need these players. John Scott should join a circus.