D.J. Smith Hotseat Thread

DryKing said:
Defense has generated more opportunities and scoring, though, which was greatly needed (I believe the Kings were among last in that category prior to the HC change). The team is also playing more physical, but that also exposes the slow defense more.

End of day they have been a tougher team to beat on most nights, but still have glaring weaknesses.

As others have mentioned, the vets are still being given too much ice time which isn't a recipe that will work over a 82 game season + playoffs.
Click to expand...
I think this sums up DJ’s coaching very well. I think the increased hitting has definitely resulted in some pucks going back the other way that wouldn’t before but Hiller had guys glued to spots on the ice. There is no perfect system or perfect player. You give to get.

There was a (to me) fascinating post on IG I saw yesterday showing the leaders in giveaways league-wide. It’s superstars leading the way:

IMG_9880.jpeg


A big part of this is due to ice time and more opportunity to give the puck away. But the list went down to 91 and there were no Kings listed. Though Fiala has 75 giveaways and would likely make the cut if healthy. He’s not the calibre of the top-end talent but there needs to be some comfort with risk-reward hockey otherwise just ice a whole team of Scott Laughtons.

Why I bring this up is because Hiller forced everyone to play the exact same way and look where it got them this year. DJ is not the solution, but he’s basically coming off like an average coach that at least lets the guys play. That means mistakes, but that also means opportunities. We’re seeing guys play hard, not work hard in service to a suffocating system.
 
JC6388LAKings said:
The Kings need to stop actually winning their last remaining games this season. Even if they secure the final WC2 spot in the Western Conference, they will clearly get eaten alive by any of the Central Division teams or by Anaheim, Deadmonton, or Vegass once the playoffs are set. Plus, winning their games hurts their draft position even more so they're screwing themselves out of a potential franchise-changing pick and could end up becoming like Columbus after the late 10s (if that's a good analogy).
Click to expand...
They have won one out of the last six, so there is a good chance they will keep on losing.
 
JC6388LAKings said:
The Kings need to stop actually winning their last remaining games this season. Even if they secure the final WC2 spot in the Western Conference, they will clearly get eaten alive by any of the Central Division teams or by Anaheim, Deadmonton, or Vegass once the playoffs are set. Plus, winning their games hurts their draft position even more so they're screwing themselves out of a potential franchise-changing pick and could end up becoming like Columbus after the late 10s (if that's a good analogy).
Click to expand...
They will still screw it up--by drafting a "project" that can't skate.
 
hokiecat said:
Actually it would if the Kings won the lottery and drafted #2 again.
Click to expand...

Truly? Why then do only ~46% of 2nd overall picks, since the inception of the NHL, play over 750 NHL games in their career (which is 3rd highest of any draft pick position)?

18% never even make it to 300 games (QB already has 340).

Success Rate Data (2nd Overall):
  • 1+ NHL Games: 93.4%
  • 300+ NHL Games: 82.0%
  • 500+ NHL Games: 72.1%
  • 750+ NHL Games: 45.9%
  • 1000+ NHL Games: 32.8%
You act like every 1st overall pick is a Sidney Crosby and 2nds are all Mario Lemeiux's but if you actually break it down, QB falls within the norm not the outliers on either side of the spectrum.

By your logic only 4 out of the last 10 2nd overall picks could be considered a success, meaning 60% have thus far been failures? If we expand to the last 20 picks that wold be 10/20 = a 50% failure rate.

Something within that logic just isn't adding up. Perhaps it's not logic at all...
 
DryKing said:
Truly? Why then do only ~46% of 2nd overall picks, since the inception of the NHL, play over 750 NHL games in their career (which is 3rd highest of any draft pick position)?

18% never even make it to 300 games (QB already has 340).

Success Rate Data (2nd Overall):
  • 1+ NHL Games: 93.4%
  • 300+ NHL Games: 82.0%
  • 500+ NHL Games: 72.1%
  • 750+ NHL Games: 45.9%
  • 1000+ NHL Games: 32.8%
You act like every 1st overall pick is a Sidney Crosby and 2nds are all Mario Lemeiux's but if you actually break it down, QB falls within the norm not the outliers on either side of the spectrum.

By your logic only 4 out of the last 10 2nd overall picks could be considered a success, meaning 60% have thus far been failures? If we expand to the last 20 picks that wold be 10/20 = a 50% failure rate.

Something within that logic just isn't adding up. Perhaps it's not logic at all...
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, a lot of us posters here have set our expectations too high when it comes to top-10 draft picks because we expect them to play like they're worth the position they are when drafted by their respective teams. Even I have to admit I'm guilty of this behavior at times. In the case of Toronto fans, it's always "Boom or Bust" in their mentality of whatever picks they selected no matter what the draft round is. That's fandom to you.
 
DryKing said:
Truly? Why then do only ~46% of 2nd overall picks, since the inception of the NHL, play over 750 NHL games in their career (which is 3rd highest of any draft pick position)?

18% never even make it to 300 games (QB already has 340).

Success Rate Data (2nd Overall):
  • 1+ NHL Games: 93.4%
  • 300+ NHL Games: 82.0%
  • 500+ NHL Games: 72.1%
  • 750+ NHL Games: 45.9%
  • 1000+ NHL Games: 32.8%
You act like every 1st overall pick is a Sidney Crosby and 2nds are all Mario Lemeiux's but if you actually break it down, QB falls within the norm not the outliers on either side of the spectrum.

By your logic only 4 out of the last 10 2nd overall picks could be considered a success, meaning 60% have thus far been failures? If we expand to the last 20 picks that wold be 10/20 = a 50% failure rate.

Something within that logic just isn't adding up. Perhaps it's not logic at all...
Click to expand...

Luckily for the Kings, this year's top 3 is truly something to behold. An offensive dynamo, a stellar two-way winger playing top 6 hockey among the best pros outside of the NHL and a 6ft 2 Doughty making huge strides this season.

So, naturally, the Kings will barely make the playoffs and pick 16th.
 
DryKing said:
Truly? Why then do only ~46% of 2nd overall picks, since the inception of the NHL, play over 750 NHL games in their career (which is 3rd highest of any draft pick position)?

18% never even make it to 300 games (QB already has 340).

Success Rate Data (2nd Overall):
  • 1+ NHL Games: 93.4%
  • 300+ NHL Games: 82.0%
  • 500+ NHL Games: 72.1%
  • 750+ NHL Games: 45.9%
  • 1000+ NHL Games: 32.8%
You act like every 1st overall pick is a Sidney Crosby and 2nds are all Mario Lemeiux's but if you actually break it down, QB falls within the norm not the outliers on either side of the spectrum.

By your logic only 4 out of the last 10 2nd overall picks could be considered a success, meaning 60% have thus far been failures? If we expand to the last 20 picks that wold be 10/20 = a 50% failure rate.

Something within that logic just isn't adding up. Perhaps it's not logic at all...
Click to expand...
Yeah it's some twisted pretzel logic that you're using.

Games played is not some magical metric of a players impact. It's a very basic top level stat. As I pointed out before for Turcotte, every other player in the top 10 of that draft has more point shares. Byfield and Stutzle were neck and neck for the Kings draft pick and we took the wrong one. Or we took and failed to develop the wrong one. The Kings draft misses are why our upside is very limited after the rebuild.

To pick apart your foolishness even more, I can tell you why all the 2 overall played fewer games-- old time medicine. Were they bad players or were injuries more career ending back then without all the improvements in surgical techniques over 50 years? Bobby Orr played 657 games. I guess he sucked. Better to have Sean O'Donnell with over 1200 games played by your logic.

Looking at QB on this list, phttps://www.quanthockey.com/nhl-draft/en/overall/2-overall-draft-picks-players-all-time-points-leaders.html, he feels a lot more David Legwand than Malkin or Doughty.

Or here, Second overall draft picks - Forwards - Points per game leaders, average points per game of second overall draft picks, we're much closer to the bottom than the top.

The objective when picking second overall is a guy who's a true difference maker and not a David Legwand (who had a great career, but still...). And it's not that Byfield stinks but you want another Doughty for the rare times that you're picking in the top 2 overall.
 
JC6388LAKings said:
Quite frankly, a lot of us posters here have set our expectations too high when it comes to top-10 draft picks because we expect them to play like they're worth the position they are when drafted by their respective teams. Even I have to admit I'm guilty of this behavior at times. In the case of Toronto fans, it's always "Boom or Bust" in their mentality of whatever picks they selected no matter what the draft round is. That's fandom to you.
Click to expand...
Turcotte
 
hokiecat said:
Yeah it's some twisted pretzel logic that you're using.

Games played is not some magical metric of a players impact. It's a very basic top level stat. As I pointed out before for Turcotte, every other player in the top 10 of that draft has more point shares. Byfield and Stutzle were neck and neck for the Kings draft pick and we took the wrong one. Or we took and failed to develop the wrong one. The Kings draft misses are why our upside is very limited after the rebuild.

To pick apart your foolishness even more, I can tell you why all the 2 overall played fewer games-- old time medicine. Were they bad players or were injuries more career ending back then without all the improvements in surgical techniques over 50 years? Bobby Orr played 657 games. I guess he sucked. Better to have Sean O'Donnell with over 1200 games played by your logic.

Looking at QB on this list, phttps://www.quanthockey.com/nhl-draft/en/overall/2-overall-draft-picks-players-all-time-points-leaders.html, he feels a lot more David Legwand than Malkin or Doughty.

Or here, Second overall draft picks - Forwards - Points per game leaders, average points per game of second overall draft picks, we're much closer to the bottom than the top.

The objective when picking second overall is a guy who's a true difference maker and not a David Legwand (who had a great career, but still...). And it's not that Byfield stinks but you want another Doughty for the rare times that you're picking in the top 2 overall.
Click to expand...
So let's be transparent, your pushback against the games played metric is that players historically have had injuries which kept them from playing 750 NHL games, but in the same breath do not acknowledge Turcotte has had an injury riddled career already which has kept his development and production back (and brand him a failure).

Old time medicine? Cool man, then explain Mario Lemieux who fought through cancer and still played 915 games. How about Eric Lindros whose career was cut short by concussions but still managed 760 NHL games? What you are arguing are for the outliers, not the norm. Lemieux and Lindros are also outliers in the equation which went the other way. When building a realistic success metric you need to argue based off the norm. Then you can say, this player was a draft failure or this player met expectations or was a great success. It's basic logic.

So let's take your argument for points per game - how many of the last 20 2nd overall draft picks would you consider a success? I employed what appears to be your logic and it came to 50%.

So you tell me, what is the percentage of 2nd overall pick success over the last 20 drafts?

Now tell me, do PPG measure defensive acumen. Are they considering GWG, how about PPG in the playoffs? Do they include physical play? Does it matter what teammates they have? What about Era - we have past Vezina winners who won with a below .900 save percentage, how does that factor in?

I agree PPG are important, but it is only a piece of the puzzle when measuring success.
 
Last edited:
Halfwall said:
They will still screw it up--by drafting a "project" that can't skate.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I'm convinced that the talent pool has become diluted due to expansion. Contract 10 teams, all remaining teams keep 6 players, re-draft (new contracts) and start again. Bettman steps down, and for the first time in decades is cheered.
 
2 points for wins and 0 points for losses and the Kings are sitting pretty for a high caliber draft choice. End the shootout and 3 on 3 skills competition. Go five on five like in the past. Change to 0 points for a tie, like the teams never played that night. Teams will have to take chances for the two points.

Anything else?
 
Last edited:
King of Pentacle5 said:
QB is 3rd (42) at 20 points behind Kempe (62). I have no doubt that Fiala would be ahead of him by now if he hadn’t been injured.

He's been looking better lately, I’ll give him that.
Click to expand...
Clarke is only 4 points behind him and QB was actually behind Clarke about a week ago.

I will say it sure is nice to see QB back to the form that we have had glimpses of in the past.
 
ICE24 said:
2 points for wins and 0 points for losses and the Kings are sitting pretty for a high caliber draft choice. End the shootout and 3 on 3 skills competition. Go five on five like in the past. Change to 0 points for a tie, like the teams never played that night. Teams will have to take chances for the two points.

Anything else?
Click to expand...

As I said already - 3 point regulation win, 2 point OT (5 on 5 or 4 on 4) win, 1 point SO win, 0 point ties and 0 point losses - ANY losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top