bure's triple deke Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The L.A. Kings: Not a Cinderella team You can find the following article on my blog at http://burestriplede...rella-team.html Nobody following the playoffs this year needs to be reminded how the L.A. Kings are doing. The team from Hollywood has written a script worthy of their locale: Top three teams in the West vanquished. Second eighth-seeded team to ever qualify for the Finals. Three wins away from the perfect underdog story. Lookout Dodgeball. Nobody following the playoffs this year needs to be reminded how the L.A. Kings are doing. The team from Hollywood has written a script worthy of their locale: Top three teams in the West vanquished. Second eighth-seeded team to ever qualify for the Finals. Three wins away from the perfect underdog story. Lookout Dodgeball. However, as unlikely as your standard Cinderella story initially seems, between 2002 and 2006, a poorly-seeded team had annually qualified for the Stanley Cup Finals – in order, the Carolina Hurricanes,¹ Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers all finished with bottom-three records in their conference. When you include the current feel-good team of the year, the prevalence of a Cinderella team in the Finals is exactly 1-in-2 for the past 10 years. With this in mind, are the 2012 Kings really that surprising? Is their performance really that unlikely? The answer is as emphatic as a Dustin Brown blindside to the head and/or However, as unlikely as your standard Cinderella story initially seems, between 2002 and 2006, a poorly-seeded team had annually qualified for the Stanley Cup Finals – in order, the Carolina Hurricanes,¹ Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers all finished with bottom-three records in their conference. When you include the current feel-good team of the year, the prevalence of a Cinderella team in the Finals is exactly 1-in-2 for the past 10 years. With this in mind, are the 2012 Kings really that surprising? Is their performance really that unlikely? The answer is as emphatic as a Dustin Brown blindside to the head and/or knee: Yes! Here’s why. If teams like the 2006 Oilers and 2002 Ducks represent what Cinderella squads are supposed to look like, the Kings aren’t one of them. Unlike the other four bottom-ranked teams to make the Finals in the past decade, L.A. has blitzed their way through the playoffs with a current 13-2 record. Within recent memory, your standard issue surprise team has had to scrimp and scrape their way to a shot at the Cup with one-goal games they didn’t deserve to win and the supremely elevated play of little else than their goalie (See ). Ultimately, they were outplayed and overmatched for the better part of 20-25 games. But this year’s Cinderella edition has consistently either matched or surpassed their higher-ranked opponents in all aspects of play. No, the Kings probably wouldn’t have achieved this level of success without Jonathan Quick in net, but they are anything but a one-man show. L.A. has more depth, talent and efficiency than any of their underdog predecessors ever had in their improbable runs. Statistically, the Kings have outscored their opponents 43-23 and outshot them by an average four shots per game. Sixth, seventh and eighth-placed teams can routinely make the Finals. That’s not what makes the Kings special; it’s that they’ve done so with the level of play of a first seed. Often times, L.A. has won convincingly. All of the time, they’ve done so with their opponents’ bodies lying on the ice. If not for their eighth-place ranking, nobody would ever name them after a Disney princess. The L.A. Kings have proved that they simply aren’t underdogs. The hockey world expects this team to beat New Jersey. And in that sense, that is surprising for an eighth seed. That is a big deal. -HC ¹The Hurricanes were seeded third by virtue of winning the annual Southwest Division lottery, but had actually finished with the eighth-worst record in the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cIutch Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 If i remember right they were basically a stanley cup contender on paper at the beginning of the season but it didn't pan out that way , they were so close to not even making the playoffs. It deserves some recognition , but they do have there fair chunk of star power and i dont think anyone is too surprised they are where they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bure's triple deke Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 If i remember right they were basically a stanley cup contender on paper at the beginning of the season but it didn't pan out that way , they were so close to not even making the playoffs. It deserves some recognition , but they do have there fair chunk of star power and i dont think anyone is too surprised they are where they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 With all their years of "mediocrity" (to put it nicely) it's not surprising that they're not a Cinderella team, they're basically like the Hawks from several seasons ago. Down in the dumps, but with many solid years of drafting to build a team like the one they have: Kopitar, Brown, Doughty and even Trevor Lewis are all high 1st round picks Quick (3rd round), Voynov (32nd pick-- EARLY 2nd round), Kyle Clifford (35th-- also EARLY 2nd), Martinez and even Dwight King (4th round picks) were all pretty early selections while trading for - Richards with Schenn, who was #5 pick overall several seasons ago - Carter for high pick Jack Johnson - Pat O'Sullivan, drafted in the 2nd round and acquired for the late Demitra, became Justin Williams who was a 1st rounder from Philly signing/ acquiring various pieces to turn them into the machine they are now (signed Scuderi after his Cup with Pittsburgh, signed Mitchell after we let him go; they got Canuck eliminator Stoll, plus Matt Greene (both 2nd round picks from Edmonton), for Visnovsky, while Penner was brought in for Teubert (a highly touted prospect, of which the Kings had many over their poorer seasons) and two early picks. Then Darryl Sutter did something to bring all these quality assets to play well after he was brought in. In short, they're so loaded with quality players it was only a matter of time before they matured and gelled together to become the team they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bure's triple deke Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 With all their years of "mediocrity" (to put it nicely) it's not surprising that they're not a Cinderella team, they're basically like the Hawks from several seasons ago. Down in the dumps, but with many solid years of drafting to build a team like the one they have: Kopitar, Brown, Doughty... ... Then Darryl Sutter did something to bring all these quality assets to play well after he was brought in. In short, they're so loaded with quality players it was only a matter of time before they matured and gelled together to become the team they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Fair enough, but I would still argue that it's pretty surprising to see them in the Finals. Hindsight is 20/20 and as much as they had early-season hype, I don't recall anyone being excited about this team at the beginning of the playoffs. Anyway, what I'm mostly getting at in the article is that this team is unique in the sense that unlike previous "Cinderella" like teams, they're actually outplaying their higher-seeded opponents and not just "rope-a-doping", which is rarely the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
î мцšт вяздк чфµ Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 they underachieved in the reg. season. look at their roster. its full of depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.