Ken Holland Press Conference

[hokiecat]

The Kings also only allowed 13 goals in 4 games by the Avs (2 of which were EN).

Minny has allowed 14 goals in 2 games, with the likes of Hughes, Spurgeon, Faber, etc.

Kings D is a problem, but not the biggest problem. A defense’s job is to stop scoring chances, which they did. Offense is secondary.

IMO this is a fallacy much like the "competitiveness index". The Kings goal appears to be to strangle all offense and then hope to take the lead and win on a lucky bounce. Minnesota is playing to win, hoping to go with skill against skill. To put it another way, one team is playing to win and the Kings are playing not to lose.

So while the Kings metrics may look as good or even better that the Wild so far versus Avs, the team is worse and the Kings odds of winning 16 playoff games are orders of magnitude worse. I would rather have Hughes and Faber and the rest of the Wild defense and be able to beat Dallas in 6.

Last, using stats to refute Holland's claim that we had a top defense, the Kings in 25-26 were 7-8th overall with 238 GA. In 24-25, Kings were 2nd with 203 GA. I get that scoring increased this past season but the Kings were worse compared to their peers.

 

[King of Pentacle5]

IMO this is a fallacy much like the "competitiveness index". The Kings goal appears to be to strangle all offense and then hope to take the lead and win on a lucky bounce. Minnesota is playing to win, hoping to go with skill against skill. To put it another way, one team is playing to win and the Kings are playing not to lose.

So while the Kings metrics may look as good or even better that the Wild so far versus Avs, the team is worse and the Kings odds of winning 16 playoff games are orders of magnitude worse. I would rather have Hughes and Faber and the rest of the Wild defense and be able to beat Dallas in 6.

Last, using stats to refute Holland's claim that we had a top defense, the Kings in 25-26 were 7-8th overall with 238 GA. In 24-25, Kings were 2nd with 203 GA. I get that scoring increased this past season but the Kings were worse compared to their peers.

The reason the Kings lost to the Avs was not defense. It was offense. The defense and Forsberg did a good enough job to keep them in it, but the offense could not score. That’s why the games were so close.

The opposite is happening right now to the Wild. They’re scoring a bunch, but their defense is a weak match against the Avs offense, unlike the Kings. And some of that has to do with their lack of stay at home, defensive minded defensemen. They have puck movers.

Wild D corps have just 13 combined blocked shots on 66 shots in 2 games.

OTOH, the Kings had 31 combined blocked shots by their D corps on 68 shots through their first two games vs Avs. That’s a pretty stark difference.

It’s not really a D problem for the Kings, imo. It’s a F scoring problem. The D did what they had to do to give the Kings forwards a chance to win a game, but they failed. QB alone whiffed on like 3 or 4 breakaways and a penalty shot. Laffy had a bunch of close-in chances, but couldn’t get past Wedgie. Etc.

Also, a 7/8 overall defense out of 32 teams is in the top 25%. That’s not bad, but of course could use some improvements. I think some of that drop had to do with illnesses and injuries, losing Gavi and Spence, going through a coaching change, and two new D in the lineup (2 & 5). I’m actually surprised they did as well as they did.

 

[DryKing]

The reason the Kings lost to the Avs was not defense. It was offense. The defense and Forsberg did a good enough job to keep them in it, but the offense could not score. That’s why the games were so close.

The opposite is happening right now to the Wild. They’re scoring a bunch, but their defense is a weak match against the Avs offense, unlike the Kings. And some of that has to do with their lack of stay at home, defensive minded defensemen. They have puck movers.

Wild D corps have just 13 combined blocked shots on 66 shots in 2 games.

OTOH, the Kings had 31 combined blocked shots by their D corps on 68 shots through their first two games vs Avs. That’s a pretty stark difference.

It’s not really a D problem for the Kings, imo. It’s a F scoring problem. The D did what they had to do to give the Kings forwards a chance to win a game, but they failed. QB alone whiffed on like 3 or 4 breakaways and a penalty shot. Laffy had a bunch of close-in chances, but couldn’t get past Wedgie. Etc.

Also, a 7/8 overall defense out of 32 teams is in the top 25%. That’s not bad, but of course could use some improvements. I think some of that drop had to do with illnesses and injuries, losing Gavi and Spence, going through a coaching change, and two new D in the lineup (2 & 5). I’m actually surprised they did as well as they did.

I think it comes back to what the expectation is for forwards, and defensemen. Under HIller (a lot of which carried over under DJ in the playoffs) the objective was to play defense and hope you generate a few opportunities to score (and capitalize on them). As @hokiecat stated, it ended up devolving into stopping as many scoring changes on both sides as possible and hoping a lucky bounce goes your way (resulting in a goal for).

I played under different coaching styles and can affirm that if a coach employs a system where the focus is the defense and clogging the neutral zone, it limits your scoring chances quite a bit (and typically hides a lot of your team's defensive weaknesses in the process). This style usually means the HC doesn't have a high level of confidence in your D to defend on their own. What we saw from the Kings this season was the defensive shortcomings being suppressed by the forwards staying back to defend.

Minnesota, on the other hand, is regularly activating their defense which both boosts offensive production for the team, but also creates a plethora of opportunities for the opposing team to score. They are attempting to outscore instead of limiting chances.

Pretty much Minn and LA are employing extreme examples on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[The Nuts]

IMO this is a fallacy much like the "competitiveness index". The Kings goal appears to be to strangle all offense and then hope to take the lead and win on a lucky bounce. Minnesota is playing to win, hoping to go with skill against skill. To put it another way, one team is playing to win and the Kings are playing not to lose.

So while the Kings metrics may look as good or even better that the Wild so far versus Avs, the team is worse and the Kings odds of winning 16 playoff games are orders of magnitude worse. I would rather have Hughes and Faber and the rest of the Wild defense and be able to beat Dallas in 6.

Last, using stats to refute Holland's claim that we had a top defense, the Kings in 25-26 were 7-8th overall with 238 GA. In 24-25, Kings were 2nd with 203 GA. I get that scoring increased this past season but the Kings were worse compared to their peers.

When deciding how to play you look at the roster.
The Kings made the most of the horses they have.
Seems a lot of fans genisis was the 12 14 cups.
Longer suffering old men like me know the reality of how hard it is to build a contender.
I thought the Abs would sweep the Kings but I was impressed with how the Kings kept it so tight in the first 3 games.
It is something to build on and a reason to look for Centers and not D.
But we will see what Grandpa does.

 

[Ice Rhino]

The Kings defense didn't hurt the Kings defensively; in their own zone. The Kings defense DID hurt the Kings offensively, in each zone.

It's not just scoring and assists from the back line, it's breakouts, neutral zone turnovers, creating rush attempts. If the D isn't helping start the offense from your own zone it's a big problem.

 

[Bollocks]

IMO this is a fallacy much like the "competitiveness index". The Kings goal appears to be to strangle all offense and then hope to take the lead and win on a lucky bounce. Minnesota is playing to win, hoping to go with skill against skill. To put it another way, one team is playing to win and the Kings are playing not to lose.

So while the Kings metrics may look as good or even better that the Wild so far versus Avs, the team is worse and the Kings odds of winning 16 playoff games are orders of magnitude worse. I would rather have Hughes and Faber and the rest of the Wild defense and be able to beat Dallas in 6.

Last, using stats to refute Holland's claim that we had a top defense, the Kings in 25-26 were 7-8th overall with 238 GA. In 24-25, Kings were 2nd with 203 GA. I get that scoring increased this past season but the Kings were worse compared to their peers.

But I think it's easer to score 2-3 more goals per game on average while keeping the same defensive effectiveness than it is to give up 3-4 less goals per game on average while keeping the same offensive effectiveness. For the former you need a finisher and offensive form. For the latter you need to change the way the team plays, possible quite a lot of players and a much better goalie.

The mantra (that worked) under Dean was to build from the back end out. The Kings' fundamentals were put in place under the boring Terry Murray, and Sutter then - with addition of a really good finisher in each of their Cup winning years - unleashed a 2 time Cup winner with his no-nonsense approach to hockey.

Sure, hockey in general has changed over the years, but Panthers employed a similar strategy to great success, too. Ironically, the Avs, despite being arguably the most talented team in the league for the past 4 years, won only 1 Cup in this period of time, with 2 1st round exits and one 2nd round exit. Ever since they ended their rebuild they were in total three times out in the 1st roundm 4 times in the second and won the Cup once. Panthers? 2 Cups, 1 finals, twice 1st round exit and once second round exit since they ended their suckage. Therefore if we're talking about wanting to win the Cup, I think the Panthers' approach is better and easier to achieve as it relies less on top end talent that's very difficult to find in draft outside top 5 overall, and more with trade and UFA acumen. For that you need a capable GM and head coach first and foremost.

You can rebuild and draft great talent for 5 years straight and with an incapable GM and/or HC you won't win, and that top talent that focuses most of its energy on offensive production eventually becomes prohibitively expensive and then you're stuck in the Oilers version of "we're right there" limbo. Sure, it's better than te current Kings' limbo, but it could implode horribly sooner rather than later. And they had to suck for 13 years to get there.

 

[DryKing]

But I think it's easer to score 2-3 more goals per game on average while keeping the same defensive effectiveness than it is to give up 3-4 less goals per game on average while keeping the same offensive effectiveness. For the former you need a finisher and offensive form. For the latter you need to change the way the team plays, possible quite a lot of players and a much better goalie.

The mantra (that worked) under Dean was to build from the back end out. The Kings' fundamentals were put in place under the boring Terry Murray, and Sutter then - with addition of a really good finisher in each of their Cup winning years - unleashed a 2 time Cup winner with his no-nonsense approach to hockey.

Sure, hockey in general has changed over the years, but Panthers employed a similar strategy to great success, too. Ironically, the Avs, despite being arguably the most talented team in the league for the past 4 years, won only 1 Cup in this period of time, with 2 1st round exits and one 2nd round exit. Ever since they ended their rebuild they were in total three times out in the 1st roundm 4 times in the second and won the Cup once. Panthers? 2 Cups, 1 finals, twice 1st round exit and once second round exit since they ended their suckage. Therefore if we're talking about wanting to win the Cup, I think the Panthers' approach is better and easier to achieve as it relies less on top end talent that's very difficult to find in draft outside top 5 overall, and more with trade and UFA acumen. For that you need a capable GM and head coach first and foremost.

You can rebuild and draft great talent for 5 years straight and with an incapable GM and/or HC you won't win, and that top talent that focuses most of its energy on offensive production eventually becomes prohibitively expensive and then you're stuck in the Oilers version of "we're right there" limbo. Sure, it's better than te current Kings' limbo, but it could implode horribly sooner rather than later. And they had to suck for 13 years to get there.

Building from the backend out is still the key. If you look at the teams doing well in the playoffs this year, they all have strong defensive pairings and standout defenders.

Reducing goals against and increasing goals for by a sizable amount like 2-3, or 3-4 per game is extremely difficult and likely requires both a system change and sizable revamping of personnel. Increasing or decreasing by 1 per game, from one season to the next, is a pretty substantial victory.

 

[The Nuts]

The Kings defense didn't hurt the Kings defensively; in their own zone. The Kings defense DID hurt the Kings offensively, in each zone.

It's not just scoring and assists from the back line, it's breakouts, neutral zone turnovers, creating rush attempts. If the D isn't helping start the offense from your own zone it's a big problem.

Like Minnesota?
Well its not working.
The Kings were closer.
Also Holland says we are fine at D and the focus is getting C's.
For me its a moot point to discuss something the Kings won't do for 3 season or until Bruise comes up.

 

[Ice Rhino]

Like Minnesota?
Well its not working.
The Kings were closer.
Also Holland says we are fine at D and the focus is getting C's.
For me its a moot point to discuss something the Kings won't do for 3 season or until Bruise comes up.

That's a terrible argument. Saying it's not working for Minn, with 104 pts, and a first round win -- just because they're against a team that does what I am referencing EVEN better.

Holland can say whatever he wants, it doesn't make it true, and discussion is what we do on these forums, even if we don't think it's going to happen.

 

[The Nuts]

That's a terrible argument. Saying it's not working for Minn, with 104 pts, and a first round win -- just because they're against a team that does what I am referencing EVEN better.

Holland can say whatever he wants, it doesn't make it true, and discussion is what we do on these forums, even if we don't think it's going to happen.

I know thats why I prefaced it with "for me."
I don't feel the need to categorize , rate or put down your argument.
I don't take these debates personally because my facts stand on their own merit.
I will just state facts in response to your squirming.
Minnesota is one of the best at defense contributing to offense but it only digs a deeper hole, against the well constructed Col, D. as evidenced by respective goal totals.
Kings played the right way and were much closer to winning a game than Minnesota thus far.

 

[Ice Rhino]

I know thats why I prefaced it with "for me."
I don't feel the need to categorize , rate or put down your argument.
I don't take these debates personally because my facts stand on their own merit.
I will just state facts in response to your squirming.
Minnesota is one of the best at defense contributing to offense but it only digs a deeper hole, against the well constructed Col, D. as evidenced by respective goal totals.
Kings played the right way and were much closer to winning a game than Minnesota thus far.

We're different that way, as I get offended by comments like "squirming." Perhaps you could explain that?

And while I'm asking questions, if this is your opinion ("for me") then how is it "fact?"

We're all rooting for the same team, man.

 

[ICE24]

To be fair to Holland, he almost has to say, the Kings were right there or we are very close. Otherwise, why is he there. He signed for three.

 

[The Nuts]

We're different that way, as I get offended by comments like "squirming." Perhaps you could explain that?

And while I'm asking questions, if this is your opinion ("for me") then how is it "fact?"

We're all rooting for the same team, man.

Seems like my comment was making you squirm. I was letting you know with for me in case it got more redundant and i didnt respond. I am secretly part of the nhl deep state pretending to root zkings on

 

[Bollocks]

Building from the backend out is still the key. If you look at the teams doing well in the playoffs this year, they all have strong defensive pairings and standout defenders.

Reducing goals against and increasing goals for by a sizable amount like 2-3, or 3-4 per game is extremely difficult and likely requires both a system change and sizable revamping of personnel. Increasing or decreasing by 1 per game, from one season to the next, is a pretty substantial victory.

I'm not talking about increasing those goals over the course of entire season...but in the context of playoffs.

The Kings were never meant to even make the playoffs in 2012, were 29th in GF, yet they won the Cup. Not by suddenly becoming an offensive juggernaut in the playoffs, but by scoring more (and when it mattered the most) while keeping up stellar defensive play.

Of course, 2-3 per game average increase is too far out there. But perhaps scoring even 1.5 more per game in the playoffs if the defense stays as solid as it was is plenty enough with how tight many of the timely playoff games in the last several years were...the last loss against the Avs was a crapshoot anyway, I'm sure the heads were not in it anymore...but the rest of the games were 2-1, 2-1 and 3-2 with an empty netter at the end.

 

[hokiecat]

Like Minnesota?
Well its not working.
The Kings were closer.
Also Holland says we are fine at D and the focus is getting C's.
For me its a moot point to discuss something the Kings won't do for 3 season or until Bruise comes up.

Holy small sample size Batman.
The Kings were 20th best in the NHL. Minnesota was top 7 or something.
Minnesota goal differential was +32 while Kings were -22.
Minnesota won a first round game against an opponent who was top 3 in the NHL.

I'm not talking about increasing those goals over the course of entire season...but in the context of playoffs.

The Kings were never meant to even make the playoffs in 2012, were 29th in GF, yet they won the Cup. Not by suddenly becoming an offensive juggernaut in the playoffs, but by scoring more (and when it mattered the most) while keeping up stellar defensive play.

Of course, 2-3 per game average increase is too far out there. But perhaps scoring even 1.5 more per game in the playoffs if the defense stays as solid as it was is plenty enough with how tight many of the timely playoff games in the last several years were...the last loss against the Avs was a crapshoot anyway, I'm sure the heads were not in it anymore...but the rest of the games were 2-1, 2-1 and 3-2 with an empty netter at the end.

1.5 more goals per game is a huge increase. That would have caused the Tampa-Montreal series to be a sweep for either team. It is doubly big in the context of the Kings' game plan which is to strangle the offense out of the game and try to win 2-1 or 3-2 off of a couple goals and a lucky bounce.
Also adding a 1.5 goals when the defense has 1.5 puck movers in Clarke and Doughty is a big ask. The Kings lack a roster to significantly increase scoring. They are locking things down to make the game a 50/50 coint toss.

 

[Bollocks]

Holy small sample size Batman.
The Kings were 20th best in the NHL. Minnesota was top 7 or something.
Minnesota goal differential was +32 while Kings were -22.
Minnesota won a first round game against an opponent who was top 3 in the NHL.

1.5 more goals per game is a huge increase. That would have caused the Tampa-Montreal series to be a sweep for either team. It is doubly big in the context of the Kings' game plan which is to strangle the offense out of the game and try to win 2-1 or 3-2 off of a couple goals and a lucky bounce.
Also adding a 1.5 goals when the defense has 1.5 puck movers in Clarke and Doughty is a big ask. The Kings lack a roster to significantly increase scoring. They are locking things down to make the game a 50/50 coint toss.

I'm not saying it's easily doable...but that should be the goal. We're not rebuilding, and Ken can't replace half of the team with high end skill players to try and emulate the Wild. It's the only option.

And I'm basing my "cautious optimism" on presumtion that Ken will manage to find a legitimate #2C and a mobile, puck moving top 4 D and sign Laughton without selling the farm in the process. If he fails, well, so be it. If he succeeds, this team has some potential come playoff time and capability to score 1.5 per game more in the playoffs compared to this year, but they also need to do better work during the regular season, too, to avoid the best team in the conference in the first round.

 

[The Nuts]

Holy small sample size Batman.
The Kings were 20th best in the NHL. Minnesota was top 7 or something.
Minnesota goal differential was +32 while Kings were -22.
Minnesota won a first round game against an opponent who was top 3 in the NHL.

1.5 more goals per game is a huge increase. That would have caused the Tampa-Montreal series to be a sweep for either team. It is doubly big in the context of the Kings' game plan which is to strangle the offense out of the game and try to win 2-1 or 3-2 off of a couple goals and a lucky bounce.
Also adding a 1.5 goals when the defense has 1.5 puck movers in Clarke and Doughty is a big ask. The Kings lack a roster to significantly increase scoring. They are locking things down to make the game a 50/50 coint toss.

We have yet to have Fiala and Pan at the same time, probably worth close to .5/g.

 

[The Nuts]

I'm not saying it's easily doable...but that should be the goal. We're not rebuilding, and Ken can't replace half of the team with high end skill players to try and emulate the Wild. It's the only option.

And I'm basing my "cautious optimism" on presumtion that Ken will manage to find a legitimate #2C and a mobile, puck moving top 4 D and sign Laughton without selling the farm in the process. If he fails, well, so be it. If he succeeds, this team has some potential come playoff time and capability to score 1.5 per game more in the playoffs compared to this year, but they also need to do better work during the regular season, too, to avoid the best team in the conference in the first round.

sounded to me like Ken may not touch the D.