Competitiveness Index

[Bollocks]

Totally. The Kings can claim to be the most competitive non playoff team. Up there with Winnipeg.

Not to be overly harsh, but the poor correlation between the index in the standings would indicate it needs more tweaking. IMO, It overweights the penalty for a single blowout loss.

I think it's more like an index based on which you could make a projection of how big the gap is towards being higher up the standings. The biggest difference between the standings and competitive index, the "easier" it would be for the team to climb up the standings if they get hot-ish, but not very hot.

 

[Clif]

The other night the telecast had a graphic displaying league leaders in one-goal games. Kings were right at the top, barely edged out of first place, at like .811. So it follows they’d be in the top in this index also.

It’s a half glass situation. I find it telling that the Kings have had a spate of injuries for weeks now and are still in one-goal games. It’s almost like it doesn’t matter who’s in the lineup for Hiller Hockey.

 

[Ice Rhino]

Kings sure do manage to lose a lot of close games. Good for them.

 

[Bollocks]

The other night the telecast had a graphic displaying league leaders in one-goal games. Kings were right at the top, barely edged out of first place, at like .811. So it follows they’d be in the top in this index also.

It’s a half glass situation. I find it telling that the Kings have had a spate of injuries for weeks now and are still in one-goal games. It’s almost like it doesn’t matter who’s in the lineup for Hiller Hockey.

One more reason to trade Kuz and Perry at the deadline.

 

[symbology]

The other night the telecast had a graphic displaying league leaders in one-goal games. Kings were right at the top, barely edged out of first place, at like .811. So it follows they’d be in the top in this index also.

It’s a half glass situation. I find it telling that the Kings have had a spate of injuries for weeks now and are still in one-goal games. It’s almost like it doesn’t matter who’s in the lineup for Hiller Hockey.

What is that going to get them in the playoffs should they make it? They only have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs in 54 games. That is just a ROW in 35% of games played. Meaning, the Kings will likely win no more than 2 games in a 7 game series. As we all know there is no pity point in the playoffs.

A quick comparison......

2-20-2024 = Kings played 54 games had 25 RW's and 27 ROWs. (.611 points % and 54 points via ROWs)
2-22-2025 = Kings played 54 games had 27 RW's and 29 ROWs. (.620 points % and 58 points via ROWs)
2-01-2026 = Kings played 54 games have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs (.556 points % and 38 points via ROWs)

Wins count a lot more than any other darn stat and the Kings can only do that in regulation 26% of the time and when going to OT/SO they can only do it 35% of the time.

 

[Clif]

What is that going to get them in the playoffs should they make it? They only have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs in 54 games. That is just a ROW in 35% of games played. Meaning, the Kings will likely win no more than 2 games in a 7 game series. As we all know there is no pity point in the playoffs.

A quick comparison......

2-20-2024 = Kings played 54 games had 25 RW's and 27 ROWs. (.611 points % and 54 points via ROWs)
2-22-2025 = Kings played 54 games had 27 RW's and 29 ROWs. (.620 points % and 58 points via ROWs)
2-01-2026 = Kings played 54 games have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs (.556 points % and 38 points via ROWs)

Wins count a lot more than another darn stat and the Kings can only do that in regulation 26% of the time and when going to OT/SO they can only do it 35% of the time.

Yep. When I say half glass, I see it as half empty. But the spin calls it half full. It’s fitting that the end of the Blake Plan is a team who’s “right there” and utterly toothless.

I’m confident Holland sees this. There may be a due diligence, cheap deal made like Kane or something but it’s obvious Hiller isn’t up to the job and I think Holland has quiet quit this season. Should be an interesting summer.

 

[Bollocks]

What is that going to get them in the playoffs should they make it? They only have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs in 54 games. That is just a ROW in 35% of games played. Meaning, the Kings will likely win no more than 2 games in a 7 game series. As we all know there is no pity point in the playoffs.

A quick comparison......

2-20-2024 = Kings played 54 games had 25 RW's and 27 ROWs. (.611 points % and 54 points via ROWs)
2-22-2025 = Kings played 54 games had 27 RW's and 29 ROWs. (.620 points % and 58 points via ROWs)
2-01-2026 = Kings played 54 games have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs (.556 points % and 38 points via ROWs)

Wins count a lot more than another darn stat and the Kings can only do that in regulation 26% of the time and when going to OT/SO they can only do it 35% of the time.

Well, the playoff OT is 5 on 5. Hiller=genius.

 

[hokiecat]

Well then look at uncompetitive losses:

1) Colorado 2
2) Los Angeles 4
3) Tampa Bay 5
3) Dallas 5
3) Utah 5
3) Winnipeg 5
3) Seattle 5

Yes, we lack finish and it's cost us. But a half dozen timely goals, and a few late leads preserved, and we have home ice in the playoffs. And only once in 13 games are we "out of it" in the late stages. And this is with a number of injuries. The team may not have a high upside, but the way it's being talked about as one of the grave disappointments is outer lunar.

The problem with this index (and things have improved since last week when I was going to reply) is 3 of the teams have a negative goal differential. So 43% of the teams with the least "uncompetitive losses" are not very good. The other 4 are very good (at least 3, maybe Utah). The problem that I see is you're trying to use metrics to find "good teams" but this metric seems to find "good teams plus mediocre teams which play low event hockey".

 

[Bollocks]

The problem with this index (and things have improved since last week when I was going to reply) is 3 of the teams have a negative goal differential. So 43% of the teams with the least "uncompetitive losses" are not very good. The other 4 are very good (at least 3, maybe Utah). The problem that I see is you're trying to use metrics to find "good teams" but this metric seems to find "good teams plus mediocre teams which play low event hockey".

I have a suspicion it shows the teams that are, if they are not well placed in the standings, the most likely to improve their record if they get better offense OR defense down the stretch, or more luck/boucnes/timely goals coming their way. And the teams, if they are well placed in the standings, that are the least likely to "stink it up" and fall down.

Winnipeg, for example, never struck me as a considerably worse team this season on paper than it was the previous, when they comfortably won their very tough division. Sure, they lost Ehlers and failed to replace him with a player of similar quality, but is that really enough of a difference between comfortably winning their very difficult division and being out of playoff picture so far this year? Their defence, and especially goaltending, is quite a lot worse this year.

They are a team that could potentially turn things around if their defense stabilizes and Hellebuyck finds some form, or maybe with a new head coach. The Kings could also benefit the most with a new head coach (though their record suggests that won't happen, so there's less chance to improve than Winnipeg on this front) or if their offense somehow starts clicking (though at this point that seems quite unlikely, but weirder things have happened).

 

[aragorn]

What is that going to get them in the playoffs should they make it? They only have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs in 54 games. That is just a ROW in 35% of games played. Meaning, the Kings will likely win no more than 2 games in a 7 game series. As we all know there is no pity point in the playoffs.

A quick comparison......

2-20-2024 = Kings played 54 games had 25 RW's and 27 ROWs. (.611 points % and 54 points via ROWs)
2-22-2025 = Kings played 54 games had 27 RW's and 29 ROWs. (.620 points % and 58 points via ROWs)
2-01-2026 = Kings played 54 games have 14 RWs and 19 ROWs (.556 points % and 38 points via ROWs)

Wins count a lot more than any other darn stat and the Kings can only do that in regulation 26% of the time and when going to OT/SO they can only do it 35% of the time.

True, but the Kings only have 17 regulation losses in 54 games. So opponents only have a 34% chance of beating us in regulation. If that's all you looked at you'd say we were looking great. Sure gimmicky 3on3 and shootouts aren't gonna matter in the playoffs... We can't beat anyone in regulation but no one can beat us in regulation either.

 

[Clif]

True, but the Kings only have 17 regulation losses in 54 games. So opponents only have a 34% chance of beating us in regulation. If that's all you looked at you'd say we were looking great. Sure gimmicky 3on3 and shootouts aren't gonna matter in the playoffs... We can't beat anyone in regulation but no one can beat us in regulation either.

Because Hiller actually hates the sport of hockey and goals frighten him, no matter who gets them. When Kings go up by one he just wants everyone to sit back and hold on because the game will be over eventually.

To his dismay, this means extra time more often than not. The snake eats its tail.

 

[symbology]

True, but the Kings only have 17 regulation losses in 54 games. So opponents only have a 34% chance of beating us in regulation. If that's all you looked at you'd say we were looking great. Sure gimmicky 3on3 and shootouts aren't gonna matter in the playoffs... We can't beat anyone in regulation but no one can beat us in regulation either.

Valid point, but 14-17 is still a losing record. You can throw out shootouts for sure. Especially when the Kings are 4-6 in the shootout. Almost a wash. 3on3 is a bit of a gimmick, but it is what it is. You cannot throw out all the stats you do not like. I also think that the Kings have been fortunate more times than not when it comes to even getting to OT.

 

[aragorn]

Valid point, but 14-17 is still a losing record. You can throw out shootouts for sure. Especially when the Kings are 4-6 in the shootout. Almost a wash. 3on3 is a bit of a gimmick, but it is what it is. You cannot throw out all the stats you do not like. I also think that the Kings have been fortunate more times than not when it comes to even getting to OT.

I'm not the one who threw out stats... you were. I simply added the one you chose not to show. Their chances are weak to even make the playoffs but your statement the Kings will win no more than 2 games doesn't wash when it also shows our opponents will only win 2 games. Someone has to win two more games 5on5. It looks more like the Kings losing a series 4-2 with 5 of 6 going to ot.

 

[symbology]

I'm not the one who threw out stats... you were. I simply added the one you chose not to show. Their chances are weak to even make the playoffs but your statement the Kings will win no more than 2 games doesn't wash when it also shows our opponents will only win 2 games. Someone has to win two more games 5on5. It looks more like the Kings losing a series 4-2 with 5 of 6 going to ot.

I agreed with you and said "valid point". I said throw out shootouts, because there is nothing like that in the playoffs and they are far removed from the actual game of hockey, if you know what I mean. When I said "you cannot throw out all the stats" I did not mean you. I meant "we" and should have used that term.

What I meant was you/we cannot throw out everything. Big picture you can ignore shootouts when comparing to the playoffs, but 3 on 3 is what it is. A gimmick, but it is still hockey and should be taken into account on the overall play of the team. What weight you give those 3 on 3 wins/losses is a darn good question. You for sure will see 4 on 4 in the playoffs and that is its own thing, just like 3 on 3 is it own thing.

 

[Bollocks]

The bottom line is - 3 on 3 OT IS a thing in the NHL nowadays, and Ken DID know Hiller will play this kind of hockey - the 3-2, 2-1, 1-0 or whatever league it is kind of hockey.

And if Hiller hockey is supposedly good for playoffs that's all fine and dandy, but you have to get to the playoffs first in order to try and do some damage there. So they should've plan for regular season OT hockey, not just playoff OT hockey.

Therefore this is a failure on both HC and GM that they somehow did not "plan" for 3 on 3 hockey. There's no other solid option on the back end apart from Clarke for the overtime hockey. One of Dumo and Ceci should've been a more mobile, offensively gifted D-man and it isn't (but we knew that already). Not sure what other realistic options were out there, but fact of the matter is that this team, barring any significant uptick in offensive production (while not giving up on the defensive end), will walk on the very edge up until the end of the season unless there's a move made that could improve things on D, and give the Kings more options both for 3 on 3 and powerplay. The problem here is you don't want to spend significant assets for a 3rd pairing D-man, and there's no rumored moves like that, the rumor guys are only mentioning forwards.

 

[aragorn]

I agreed with you and said "valid point". I said throw out shootouts, because there is nothing like that in the playoffs and they are far removed from the actual game of hockey, if you know what I mean. When I said "you cannot throw out all the stats" I did not mean you. I meant "we" and should have used that term.

What I meant was you/we cannot throw out everything. Big picture you can ignore shootouts when comparing to the playoffs, but 3 on 3 is what it is. A gimmick, but it is still hockey and should be taken into account on the overall play of the team. What weight you give those 3 on 3 wins/losses is a darn good question. You for sure will see 4 on 4 in the playoffs and that is its own thing, just like 3 on 3 is it own thing.

3on3 is a fun thing for the NHL... better than continual ties. What they mean in the playoffs is a big fat zero. 5on5 and how you handle 4on5 is what matters.

 

[symbology]

3on3 is a fun thing for the NHL... better than continual ties. What they mean in the playoffs is a big fat zero. 5on5 and how you handle 4on5 is what matters.

Again, I get it. I just do not think it should be totally ignored. Just like you should not ignore 4 on 4. That is how Edmonton likes to play against the Kings in the PO's (when they are down). 4 on 4 is as similar to 3 on 3 as it is 5 on 5, was the point I was making. Also, I am guessing most of the Kings wins in OT were from being on the power play. I agree it does not mean a whole lot, but if you take anything from it, it is not a positive.