A Real Look At The NHL Standings – Don’t Tell Hammond.

Player-X comes to us with his fourth…third…sixth? Fourth, pretty sure it’s the fourth article for S&S. One more and he is a stalker. Enjoy.

Never mind how pissed I am that Hammond butchered a perfectly fine idea for a full article by using incomplete stats in a superficial subject-skim, a full 11 days after my original article posted here at S&S. He has a right to publish whatever he wants, and who is to say he actually saw my article (Playoffs?…) complete with all he posted and more, especially the chart of teams’ games left. It’s not an issue; I’m over it. Actually, I have no idea why you would even bring it up; it doesn’t concern me in the least.

Anyway, here is a more in-depth update to the subject of remaining games, playoff chances and how the schedule (home vs. road games left) impacts those chances of various teams making the playoffs.

The Kings have 12 home, and 20 road games left, having so far taken 55 points of 98 possible for a winning percentage of .5612.

Going deeper, the Kings have a home record of 32 points from a possible 58 for .5517, and a road record of 26 out of a possible 42 for .6190. Multiply these percentages against remaining games left yields 13.24 points at home and 24.76 points on the road. Add them together including the .24 and .76 leftovers, just to use the slop (like a pig farmer) to keep things tidy and you get a total rounded to 38 more points if the Kings maintain the same pace at home and on the road. This gives a season total of 93 points.

Getting even more technical now, that “ain’t very damn good.” If the consensus projected total of 96ish points being necessary to get in is correct, the Kings need to improve. However, what if all teams maintained their current home and road paces?

Now that we have the formula, here is the team-by-team comparison chart:

Detroit 18 home @ .8913 = 32.09 PLUS 14 road @ .4814 = 13.47 yields 113 total
BitchAss Vancouver 18 home @ .6739 = 24.26 PLUS 15 road @ .6346 = 19.04 yields 107 total
San Jose 16 home @ .6400 = 20.48 PLUS 19 road @ .6363 = 24.18 yields 105 total
Chicago 12 home @ .7241 = 17.37 PLUS 20 road @ .5238 = 20.95 yields 102 total
Nashville 15 home @ .6730 = 10.10 PLUS 17 road @ .6041 = 20.54 yields 95 total
St. Louis 13 home @ .8214 = 10.68 PLUS 20 road @ .4523 = 18.09 yields 94 total
Minnesota 19 home @ .6590 = 25.05 PLUS 14 road @ .4814 = 13.48 yields 94 total
Kings 12 home @ .5517 = 13.24 PLUS 20 road @ .6190 = 24.76 yields 93 total
PunkAss Dallas 16 home @ .6000 = 19.20 PLUS 18 road @ .4782 = 17.21 yields 88 total
Colorado 15 home @ .5384 = 16.15 PLUS 16 road @ .5200 = 16.64 yields 87 total
Calgary 19 home @ .6363 = 24.18 PLUS 13 road @ .4286 = 11.14 yields 87 total
Phoenix 18 home @ .5217 = 18.78 PLUS 14 road @ .4814 = 13.48 yields 84 total
Anaheim 15 home @ .5192 = 15.57 PLUS 19 road @ .3636 = 13.82 yields 72 total

If the Kings, and all other teams, maintain their exact percentage paces at home and on the road, the Kings’ road prowess saves them and they get in.

Note the Red Wings are currently on a streak of 17 wins at home, and have gained 41 of a possible 46 points. Pricks. It seems unlikely for that trend to continue, however it also would have seemed equally unlikely for it to ever happen in the first place. Plus, they suck on the road and I am just happy to find any hard stat showing that the Red Wings suck at anything.

St. Louis drops two spots in the standings to 6th over time, as their home record excellence runs out of games left and they have been poor on the road. Chicago climbs two spots from their current placement in the standings, passing Nashville and replacing St. Louis in 4th. Nashville also climbs over St. Louis for 5th. Minnesota passes the Kings for 7th, and the Kings make it in, for 8th position but with a 5-point cushion to a group of 4 teams between 88 and 84 points.

As His Gentle Honor Tuan Jim pointed out to me ever so kindly in the last article comments, past performance is neither dispositive nor determinative of future performance. He could have simply quoted any stock brokerage firm, saying past results don’t guarantee future similar results, but then again his entire point seems an attempt to discount the time-tested and mandatory prospectus given to investors. Anyway, his comments washed off my back like water-bottle backwash off a Duck from Anaheim, it is not an issue and actually never bothered me at all. Why bring it up?

I did not look at which team has a tougher schedule, or rank quality of opponents, or which team has more back-to-backs, greater travel, more divisional games, etc. I will leave that for the bookies, and for those who are even sicker than I am. I do know the Kings have some really tough periods, some of which Hammond discussed in his own “Cliff Notes” way.  Here is what I said 11 days ago:

So,… it means that the most important games will be the road games against conference rivals; the 4 point games on the road will likely tell the story.

I am looking at 13 road games: Vancouver=2, Minnesota=2, Nashville=2, San Jose, St. Louis, PunkAss Dallas, Phoenix, Anaheim, Colorado and Calgary all = 1 each. Critical games where we control our own fate in the standing but have to go into their building.

The Stars game is the second night in back-to-back, coming in from the freakin’ Islanders building. Yikes. The Avalanche game is a second night, too, right after a Phoenix game. Big two nights there. The first Wild game is the night after playing Nashville, and the second Wild game is the night after playing those pesky Oilers. Lots of these games are the second night of back-to-back game days, dammit.

Since the article posted on Jan. 16, the Kings lost in shootout to the Oilers and beat Vancouver in those road games. 3 of 4 points is .750, eet woz varrry goood. Must keep doing.

The original point when I was talking about the Kings making the playoffs was that this team, with a significant recent history of losing streaks after the All-Star break, probably couldn’t afford such a losing streak this year. I still think that is so. Thanks for reading.



Categories: L.A. Kings News

60 replies

  1. Sorry did not read this but I was listenting to a few TSN/CBC discussions of the upcoming trade deadline, and hopefully I am passing on something that has not been discussed.

    There are a lot of people who are still pissed about player mismanagement within the Kings organization, and rightfully so.

    Names like Purcell/Moulson/Frolov/Handzus/Simmonds seem to be the open wound or Necrotizing fasciitis that lingers during the Dean Lombardi reign in Los Angeles.

    We can all agree, the pretty girl at the dance before, or after this season is over is Zach Parise.

    Its highly unlikely, the Kings will be able to lure Parise out to Los Angeles although not impossible.

    We all know what Parise will bring to any NHL team, however at what price?

    So here it is :The Kings need a LW who can put up 20-25 goals per season and average 50 pts per season. Matt Moulson is on track to score 30+ goals for the 3rd year in a row, and 48+ points for the 3rd season in a row.

    Matt Moulson currently is making 2.5 mill this season at a CAP Hit of 3.133 million. Next season 2012-2013 Moulson’ salary goes up to 3 mill, with a CAP Hit of 3.133 mill. During 2013-2014 Moulson’ salary goes up to 3.9 mill with a CAP Hit of 3.133.

    It would seem the Islanders are continuing their rebuilding process via the draft, along with adding veteran players to fill in a need until they can develop a player or make a trade for a player at a position of need.

    So I guess what I am saying is, the Kings have a need, and the Islanders have many needs. The Islanders need goaltending, a puck rushing defenseman, solid blueliner and help at the forward postion.

    The Kings are a perfect trading partner, they have plenty of prospects, even roster players to offer, while not doing anything extreme or costly. The Kings would now be in position to let Penner and potentially Stoll, and Gagne walk and not really suffer. Adding Moulson should be pretty easy in theory, and since his contract doesn’t end until the 2013-2014 season, we get 2 solid years from him . If he is still putting up similar numbers like he is currently is, then this gives some cushion, to develop some of the prospects like Toffoli/Weal/Vey/Shore extend a Mitchell if he is interested, to give them some time to develop a Forbort/Gravel.

    If after or prior to the 2013-2014 the Kings could extend Moulson if they choose to do so.

    So maybe an open letter to Dean Lombardi is in order.

    • Lombardi trading for Moulson when he let him go for nothing would be an admission of a mistake. He won’t the admission. The ego won’t let him. He is sticking by his guns that Matt was not a hard working enough two way player and if today you asked him whether he regrets letting Moulson go, the ego would say no, he didn’t fit.

      • Letting Moulson go was not a mistake but a strategic move.

        At the time the Kings were a sieve that only let pucks get through. It was our goal production, but our goaltending and defense that were CONSTANT sources of pain and fussing among the fans.

        During that time more than one fan crabbed that we shouldn’t waste time cultivating a left-wing when it was strength in the net and on the blue line that was essential.

        Does anyone doubt that Lombardi took care of those problems? He’ll take care of any others. It’s not like he’s sweeping the need for a scoring winger under the rug. He’s working on it. His past efforts were cheered by the same assholes who now say he should never have done what he did — ANYTHING he did.

        Keep the fucking faith, Scribe. We ARE a better team since Lombardi became GM. He knows what we need and is quite capable of calculating what he has to do.

        • So, you think Lombardi said, “fuck it, let’s trash our talented wingers, forget offense, hire Murray and just focus on D and goaltending!”

          I doubt that.

          He fucked up with Moulson just like he did by firing Murray one season too late. Murray should have been canned right after that Sharks series.

          Faith shouldn’t be blind. I live and die our Kings. But I don’t hesitate to call a fuck up in foresight and hind exactly that.

          • Agreed. There were plenty of us who were saying getting rid of Moulson was a mistake, before Moulson was ever gotten rid of.

            Years later, whenever it’s brought up, poeple still get miffed because…..well I have no idea why.

          • My best guess would be because he’s on track for like forty goals this season, and the Kings don’t have one single forward who is likely to break the twenty nine mark unless someone (that someone probably being Kopitar) get’s scalding hot.

            But if Lewis or Richardson should break the twenty nine mark then they’ll be having one hell of a fantastic finish to the season…. so that would be very cool indeed.

        • It wasn’t really Lombardi “letting him go” in as much as it was Terry Murray believing he didn’t have any talent, especially on the defensive side (which he still doesn’t)

          I’ve spoken to Lombardi about Moulson and he’s told me that you put Moulson on a team with defensive responsibilities and he’s as ordinary as Brad Richardson (who once scored 14 goals with Colorado).

          I was personal witness to the Boyle and Purcell frustrations. Lombardi HATED Purcell’s “hitch” when he shot and tried for a year to correct it, to no avail.

          That’s the problem I have with Muray and now Sutter. Not taking a players level of talent that they DO have and exploiting that talent and balancing that talent.

          Example. Moulson would have been great with Handzus, who was responsible and could cover for Moulson’s lack of defense.

          It’s why we see Scuderi and Mitchell with Johnson and Doughty.

          I’ve got news for all of you. Not one free agent is going to want to come and play in Sutter’s system, so enjoy this 1st or 2nd round exit.

          • Matthew, I don’t know for sure, but sounds like you’re getting at least a little … whatever it is about DL. Personally I have been now for the whole season.

            Why? Because in theory you do exactly what you suggested. You work to find a way to maximize the strengths of people. I mean, take the Rangers. Patrick Stepan, Carl Hagelin. I don’t know for sure, but I imagine they must have some little weakness in their games… but they find a way to use the qualities that they Do have in a productive way. Which is why I think Lombardi drafts forwards the way he does (in the lower rounds). Not much upside but you can basically see what they do and you know what you’re getting (that’s a guess on my part I have to admit). But they are players with simpler more basic games. Then you get a guy with a bit of creativity like Moller and ‘he’s too small and always get’s knocked off the puck” (?) so he can’t make it in the bigs?

            I find the whole thing very confusing. I love some of the things DL does, but unless he ups the skill level and speed of a percentage of that team, they look to be a very nice just above .500 team and most assuredly there is no way they’d even be a .500 team this season were it not for Jonathan Quick…. and I don’t think most would argue that point.

          • Because I think as Lombardi hires the coaches, it’s the whole upper mgt that is responsible for these things…. not just a coach.

          • Sorry…. correction. When I said that’s why DL drafts forwards in the lower rounds, I was referring to the 2nd and 3rd rounds (in other words…. the earlier rounds… it’s late in the east and I’m making mistakes)

      • Well Bobby, guess what. I made the same comment at the bottom, but in case you didn’t see the comment (or the interview) Tavares was interviewed tonight and asked why his line w Moulson (called out by name) was having so much success. He said only that it was because they work so hard.

        I’m not saying what anyone else here thinks, but clearly DL has a very very bizarre sense of someone’s work habits. I can not imagine that someone who is successful because he works so hard was at one time a loafer….. particularly at a time when he was anything but assured a permanent roster spot.

        Anyway, watching the skills competition I just thought about how ‘over’ Lombardi I am at the moment.

        In five years + the only guy he’s drafted with those levels of skill is one Signore Doughty. He’d best do something healthy with the No. 2 overall pick. Otherwise….. guys who ‘come to play’ but unfortunately have a very hard time finding the back of the net….
        unless we’re talking Toffoli in juniors, which is of little to no help at the moment.

        Urgh.

  2. Hey, let Lombardi do something stupid (again) so he can get fired. Possibly better for the most part

  3. Yep, the Hammond was a bit of soft soap fluff. Good piece.

    I don’t think I agree with one thing; Except for SJ and maybe Nashville, I don’t think its so important to beat the teams ahead. More important to beat the teams chasing and clean up among the dregs.

    My opinion is .670 earns a spot. Any less and it gets sketchy. Of course the Kings are the champions sketchy, never making anything easy, ever.

    • “I don’t think its so important to beat the teams ahead. More important to beat the teams chasing and clean up among the dregs.”

      Agreed, but the Kings have such a tight margin I don’t care who we beat as long as we get points. More specifically in keeping with your point, what we really want is for the Blue Jackets or Oilers or (gasp!!) Ducks to go on a tear and beat a bunch of Western Conference teams in a row. The points they get won’t hurt, but the points they deny the other teams we are directly competing with will help immensely. Let’s hope the Oilers or Jackets pull the same thing New Jersey did last year.

      To you point

  4. What would the Kings season end points earned be if you only extrapolated Sutter’s numbers (yes I realize that’s a poor sample size)?

    And something unrelated that’s been bothering me for a while…
    So lets say we do get an elite LW, Parise or somebody else. Nobody seems to be considering that we also need a hard working, reliable, not too expensive RW (you know, the kind we should have been drafting). Stoll and Penner are done. Brown has shown he should probably stick to LW, which also raises the question of does he need to be with Kopi to be productive or will he be able to do it with Richards next season? We’ll end up with lines like EliteLW-Kopi-Williams / Brown-Richards-*Hole* or Elite LW-Richards-Williams / Brown-Kopi-*Hole*. Don’t kid yourselves with any of the bottom six filling in that gap.

    Forget doing any of this by this season’s trade deadline, what players out there does everyone see as potential fits for this spot next year that are up for UFA or realistic trades?

    • The term top 6 doesn’t really apply any more. It’s really a top 4 with 2 good players who complement the other 4. Look around the league. Who has 6 elite forwards? Right now, the Kings have two – Kopitar and Richards. Brown and Williams are good. Penner and Stoll are not. It’s Penner and Stoll we are replacing or need to replace. I am very happy with the Richardson, Lokti and Lewis line as well as our fourth although Lewis’ lack of hands is a killer on that line. That is where someone like Clarke MacArthur can be tremendous. Lokti can feed him pucks all night. If Westgarth can match the intensity and hard work of his game against Ottawa, he can earn that 4th line spot. Fraser and Clifford (with his game so much better under Sutter) look good together and have chemistry.

      • Right… I didn’t really indicate I feel any different about anything you said here. Obviously we will not have an “elite” top 6, but we definitely still need an elite winger (or maybe two very good wingers, better than Brown and Williams). My point was just that while we’ve all been foaming at the mouth over a Parise (or something) at left everyone has nearly flat out ignored the impending hole on the right.

      • I love that Lewis doesn’t have great hands. It’s a pure Lombardi pick. You’ve heard of a sheep in wolves clothing… we have a defenseman masquerading as a forward…. but he’s fast.

    • Will extrapolate tomorrow morning per Sutter numbers…

  5. Player-X. Does playing more divisional rivals matter? 1rst 1/2 (50’ish games) all teams played more out of conference games, and the records, and winning percentages are sure to change with more divisional games being played by all teams from here on out, no?

    • I think it is crucial, all in-conference games but especially the divisional games. If the Kings win the division games on the road, it solves the same problem twice; we get points, they don’t.

      Also, the Kings are one of the few teams with a better road record, so if we are gonna improve it seems more likely that it would have to be at home; you can’t really expect a much better road percentage than they already have.

      They can only lose so many, but if they do lose them, it would be best to lose against Eastern Conference teams. Non-conference road games are Hurricanes, Lightning, Panthers and Islanders, all on the same road trip starting February 3 in St. Louis. The only home game against an Eastern Conference team is the Bruins on March 24.

  6. Molson is an interesting case for sure.He was a step away from being out of the NHL when he was given a last chance with the Isles.Its amazing what a bit of motivation will do for a player.Too bad he didnt show that as a King.

    • Well here’s something. Tonight during the All Star festivities Tavares was interviewed and asked why his line w Moulson is so successful. He said ‘it’s because we work so hard’. Now not living in LA I didn’t get to see Moulson.

      I’m assuming that you did? Because I have a hard time imagining the guy went from someone trying to win a spot on an nhl roster….. by loafing…. while all of a sudden he decided to start working hard in NY?

      My best guess is A) he wasn’t given much of a chance at all (22 games one season before being traded right at the beginning of the next season… that’s harsh if you ask me), And, probably being hyper vigilant about making a mistake on d, cause we know what was happening to new players if they made mistakes.

      In summation: too small of a sample size to make any sort of judgment (by the Kings….. not you).

      • You’re opening old wounds. Moulson was from day 1 a hard working player with great hands. He didn’t come with tremendous speed. His skating was above average. He knew how to get open and he buried the puck. Lombardi made a comment about his lack of hard work which was so fucking offensive to a player who has been known as a hard worker. I read an interview with Matt’s father one time as well as his coach at Conrnell (can’t remember his name) where he talked about how Moulson was one of the hardest working players out there and I saw it on the ice. Look at his freaking numbers in Manchester before he came up with the big club. Lombardi stepped on his dick and ours by letting Matt go and the ONLY REASON he let him go was because Moulson wasn’t a Murray mucker and grinder – the two way, bruising winger. See Cammalleri, Michael; Purcell, Teddy for other examples. Now, stop talking about this. It’s pissing me off.

        • Murray buried Moulson, not Lombardi

          • @to Bobby and Matthew

            Bobby…. sorrreeee (hey, I’m pissed off too, and Yes, I Did check out his numbers at Manchester) and Matthew, you may in fact be far more privy than I am to who was responsible for this mess, but I have to believe that it’s a rather shared responsibility.

            I wrote a very long long letter to Bobby months ago and talked about the ‘chemistry’ if you will between DL and TM and I felt that it wasn’t the best. The bottom line on that… KNOW YOUR COACH. If you’re the GM who hired the coach then it seems to me you’d better damned well have a feel for how he works with particular types of players.

            If DL doesn’t realize by now that there is an issue having THREE forwards who are successful elsewhere that were former Kings within the span of two seasons, then I don’t know what to say. Either he doesn’t want to admit it, he rationalizes it (like what Matthew said about how Moulson would be average) or he’s in total denial.

            If it were One player (even a drastic case like Moulson), I don’t believe that I, or anyone else would go banging on about it.

            It’s Not that Boyle is so great for example. That Is NOT the point. The point is that other franchises are finding ways to bring the most out of these players, and the Kings organization is not.

          • Murray is not the GM. If Dean Lombardi was dumb enough to not see a sniper before him, he can’t put that on his coach. He is equally responsible. And remember WHO hired Murray. Cause. Effect.

          • Um….. Bobby…. like, um……
            How can I say this? You’re preaching to the converted.

  7. And one final point to leave all my S&S friends in good spirits tonight…. I was thinking about the top six on the Kings.

    Brown, Kopi, JW, MR, Stoll and Penner. That equates to exactly zero homegrown draft picks under Dean Lombardi. I don’t know about you guys, but personally I find that extremely troubling, especially given all the players that he traded away to get more draft picks and that for a while we had more draft picks than any other team.

    Really, I personally don’t get it. And yes, I’ll always support this team, but it doesn’t mean I have to like the way things are done.

    • and obviously – hope it’s obvious – of course I know that Schenn and Simmer are sort of factored into that…. but still. Even there it’s only one forward who made an impact in Simmer.

    • Quick isn’t his draft pick either. And where would this team be without Jonathan Quick?

      • Bobby….. why the hell do you think I’m getting a little fed up with DL and his Yankees talk? Jetah… Hor hay…. Mariano the miracle Rivera….. Robbie Cano…. don’t ya know (thats what the announcer says every time he hits a home run).

        If you’re gonna talk Yankees, then you can’t expect to draft ‘nice’ players like …. fuck it, I’m not gonna mention names…. I mean they ARE nice players. But PLEASE, you’re not loading the Kings up exactly with the equivalent of those Yankees that they cultivated. If you were Chicago’s GM then you might have a case. But really, the DL picks who are On the team now other than Doughty….. Clifford, (shit, I had to stop and think), Voynov, Martinez, Bernier (we don’t know about him as he’s lower in the pecking order for the moment), Lewis, Lokti. I mean, there are hopefully gonna be a few good players out of that lot beyond DD, but I just don’t see any ‘stars in the making’ for the moment out of them other than perhaps Voynov.

        So of course I recognize that out of our four key players, three were drafted by a GM that I really didn’t care for all that much. Who woulda thought it?

  8. Hey Bobby,
    Have you guys been on jewels from the crown lately? Just wondering. tee hee hee.

    • Yeah, he gave player-x a hard time regarding his article. What was interesting is that it looked like a dig intended as nothing more than a dig. He didn’t actually comment on anything of substance player-x wrote, just the fact he thought the “relationship” between the two articles wasn’t there, which was a fair comment I think. I invited player-x to go there if he wished to address the issue since it was his work.

      I did comment however to something one of his readers and a fellow blogger, Crowned Royal, wrote with some instructive links of past articles here at S&S. You have been here long enough to know how long we have lamented and written about Murray’s shot mentality madness.

      • I have!

        I actually realized it was Player-X’s article earlier when I read Quisps article, but I was watching the All-Star game, and forgot to say something.

        As far as Crowned Royals comments, I did try to say that it was probably just coincidence since I’ve said similar comments in the past.

        Crowned Royal was probably not aware because he does his own thing, and probably doesn’t read your site very often.

        I didn’t think the 2 articles were exactly the same in substance, but I think he did.

        • I mean of course people are gonna write about the same stuff; it’s a small world of event and circumstances with everybody following the same team. And with the schedule going to such imbalance, with the playoff countdown traditionally starting after the All Star break, it makes total sense to look at the shcedule and win percentages, etc. I was just taking an opprotunity to crow about similarities and that I happened to beat Hammond to it in this case. But do I think Hammond is stealing material, or that he actually has the proper venue for in-depth percentage analysis? No, Hammond writes short articles for light reading, and always has.

          Quisp just feels his opinion is worthy on everything, invited or not, as if he is the long-needed light to clear darkness from the small corners of rooms nobody else even goes in.

      • Quisp is a humorless and pompous ass. No wonder he missed the obvious levity injected along with the “lament” about Hammond using “my material.” The whole thing was tongue-in-cheek, as I even make fun of myself for entertaining such a feeling, and then repeat the same jab at my own emotional over-reaction by using the same wording when I talk about a trivial thing Tuan Jim said that I pretended to be unable to get over.

        Probably Quisp is feeling territorial about anyone using stats, but then again I haven’t read his stuff. I get sick of his droning on about prospects, his tedious logic tree run-downs of interpersonal minutiae, and also the blatant ass-kissing from his small band of sycophants.

        Not surprisingly, he first posts about it on his site without addressing me directly here; bad form at best, cowardly at worst. In most cases I would be flattered for having been noticed, but I am reminded of the movie Jeremiah Johnson where it is said a man’s power is judged by the power of his enemies; in this case, having Quisp as an antagonist does very little for me.

        • heh. The fact he banned you may speak volumes. You know our aversion to restraint of speech and opinions around these parts. I am going to copy and paste your reply and post it there. Hey, maybe I will get banned…good times.

          • I once went on there as Player-XXX, with the same avatar by the way, as in xxx rated. He told me I was banned and that dual handles were not tolerated as a workaround. I, of course, was stunned that he saw thru my clever disguise; how did he know it was me?

          • Wow, you did it! Good ass times, man.

            I will say I am chagrined by Quisp finding the error where I said 55 points of 98 when it is 58 of 100. I guess I miscopied from Minnesota’s points total so far, but the road and home points and percentages I used were still correct nonetheless.

            Anyway, thanks for the proxy at Jewels From The Clown. (Do I think i am the first one to say that? No. Do I think it is funny anyway? Yes.)

        • I do love a great many sites. Quisp’s is one that I read daily, as is this one. It does seem there has been a long standing fued between him and our S&S boys.

          Too bad. We’re all Kingsfans here.

          I’ve never quite tried to take sides, or form an lesser opinion 1 way or the other. Seems you’ve been invited to join the party though.

          • Nah. No feud (how did you ever spell that fued? lol).

            He gave us shit this summer (some of it deserved) regarding Drew Doughty and we have every once in a while poked at each other. For me, it’s fun. No hard feelings on this end. I rarely get to read his site but when I do, I find it interesting. Regarding the two sites, it’s even more simple. If you like your sex Amish, missionary position with clothes on, you go there. If you like leather, whips and safe words, you come here.

            That is an example of a “poke.”

            I am bothered by the fact that people are banned there but then again Quisp isn’t independent. He is under the SB Nation umbrella. I am pretty sure fuck turns out f*** or maybe even **** there and discussion must be PG13 to pass the filter. How did you get me on this topic you bastard, Dom?

          • No, can they swear over there with impunity. They even post anti-semitic snobbishness-related articles on National Holocuast Remembrance Day under the SB Nation auspices. That was done on Battle of California, not JFTC. When I objected, at length, and had a huge argument with B of C guys, Quisp came in a day late and felt he needed to set everyone straight. It went badly. Let’s just say that I remained unconvinced that it was in good taste to poste Hitler jokes on that day, Quisp disagreed.

          • Meh. I think even JT and Surly got into it one time about shit like that. I tune that kind of stuff out on this site. We’re here to talk puck…and chicks…and beer…but mostly puck.

      • Quisp has me banned from commenting. Ask him why sometime. He knows I can’t respond, which is convenient. For him and me, actually.

  9. Thanks Player-X, appreciate the insight. We need the Kings to start forcing the puck into the net like Teddy Roosevelt forced a moose head onto the plaque. You’ve given us the odds, now let’s see the taxidermist’s bill.

    Kill Kings, Kill.

    • Bully! Let’s hope the Kingd adopt the Rough Riders attitude for road games AND home games.

      • Hey Player-X….. I am sooo glad you’re out there. You make it fun And interesting.

        Apropos to your above comments, many years ago I had this long discussion on the phone with a friend of mine who is also a Kings fan. He could be very drole.

        At the time I felt strongly that the Kings had no identity, no point of view. He said, yes they did! So I said… what is it? His response: ‘hell, who wants to play hockey in This weather’?

        It was undoubtedly one of those ‘you had to be there’ moments and I was rolling in laughter on the floor.
        But your comments (Rough Riders attitude for road games AND home games.) made me think of it. It was a riot!!…….. well, I suppose a lot of it was in the delivery. But he had that knack.

  10. Good post X. Thanks for doing the math dude.
    C’mon Ducks! Fuck did I just type that?

  11. Surly or Scribe,

    With the deadline coming up, do you guys have any good rumors for us? I know you used to have a good source, but then you let some asshats get to you because he wasnt right 150% of the time. I used to really like getting that behind the scenes information, whether it panned out or not. It gave us something to think about, and sometimes even when it didnt play out perfectly it still gave us clues as to what was going on. I mean sometimes the info is correct at the time, but things just fall through. But at least that tells us what they were thinking at the time.

    Anyway, any good rumors coming out of the all star game, and coming up on the deadline? Even if you just posted them in the comments thread, or emailed them to the readers who understand they wont be correct 100% of the time and have no problem with that, that would be great.

    • We are making an announcement today (at 9am) of some changes to the site but you can already see it. Go to the top of the page and look at Blasphemous Rumors. I intend to keep that page updated as information comes in.

  12. HOUSEKEEPING; MEA CULPA

    If you are reading this, it is because S&S have, again, kindly allowed me to post without deletion. I may have brought shame to their site, but I never intended do to so.

    If you don’t like petty squabbling and soap opera bullshit, do not read this.

    My article entitled “A Real Look At The Standings-Don’t Tell Hammond” http://lakingsnews.com/2012/01/28/a-real-look-at-the-standings-dont-tell-hammond/ has generated a fair amount of controversy, and animosity. Mostly, the first paragraph has been widely misunderstood, and there were also 4 significant editing errors, which created confusion.

    Original Content:

    “Never mind how pissed I am that Hammond butchered a perfectly fine idea for a full article by using incomplete stats in a superficial subject-skim, a full 11 days after my original article posted here at S&S. He has a right to publish whatever he wants, and who is to say he actually saw my article (Playoffs?…) complete with all he posted and more, especially the chart of teams’ games left. It’s not an issue; I’m over it. Actually, I have no idea why you would even bring it up; it doesn’t concern me in the least.”

    First, I should have put in a link to Hammond’s article. Rookie mistake; will not be forgotten. Here it is now: http://lakingsinsider.com/2012/01/26/who-has-the-toughest-road-in-the-west/

    Second, I could have been clearer that I was NOT accusing Hammond of actually stealing my work. While the idea is referred to, my actual criticism was that he did not fully flesh out a subject area that I had dealt with quite similarly a week and a half earlier, http://lakingsnews.com/2012/01/16/whats-that-playoffs-dont-talk-about-playoffs-you-kidding-me-playoffs/. In other words, I was JOKINGLY “pissed” because Hammond DID NOT steal from my article and instead published a very superficial treatment of the subject even though there had already been a more detailed template available for a week and a half. Some people have focused on an accusation of plagiarism instead of the intended focus being on the humor of my irrational “anger” over there being similar articles, and “anger” that Hammond’s article didn’t serve the subject well.

    Third, I said Hammond’s article appeared “a full 11 days after” mine; the time period was actually ten. Hammond’s appeared on Jan 26, mine appeared on Jan 16. This, and the lack of a link, made it doubly difficult to find the Hammond article I cited. Mine was drafted on Jan 13, e-mailed for publication on Jan 14th, and was published on Jan 16. I wrote and e-mailed “A Real Look At The Standings-Don’t Tell Hammond,” the post in question and also the one quoted above, on Jan 27 but it didn’t hit any of the interwebz until Jan 28. The miscalculation of saying 11 days instead of correctly saying it was 10 days between Hammond’s and my article was obviously lost in that soup of varying dates. It was sloppy work; it was understandable, and it was an honest mistake, but it was a lazy mistake that should not have been made. Seems small probably, but I had no idea that the red pen of a picayune was out there lurking… (He raises an eyebrow and looks off into the distance. Cue the dramatic organ, deedeedee deeeeee)

    Original Content:

    “The Kings have… so far taken 55 points of 98 possible for a winning percentage of .5612.” At that time, the record totaled 58 points of a possible 100 for a percentage of .580. Sloppy. Mistake. This mistake conflicted with the next sentence saying, “Going deeper, the Kings have a home record of 32 points from a possible 58 for .5517, and a road record of 26 out of a possible 42 for .6190.”

    These home and road records, and percentages, were correct in the second sentence shown, and this was what the graph comparing the Kings’ percentages among 13 other teams’ percentages was correctly based on. The conclusion of the article based on percentages was correct, but there was an error describing the current situation.

    I am new at blogging. I clearly need to improve on accuracy. I am somewhat forgiving of myself, just for the fact that I am so new, but the practice I have had from making comments should have carried over better than it apparently has. I can’t try harder, really, I was trying then, but I can hope to improve and devise new ways to more carefully edit stuff.

    I look at blogging as a collaborative effort. I lay the groundwork, a discussion ensues, things are learned, positions can be altered or refined, and disagreements over facts, and yes, even mistakes can be ironed out painlessly. Or not, when others corrupt the exercise as an opportunity for verbal chest-pounding and foot-stomping, shouting “gotcha” like a needy adolescent. Enter Quisp. http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/2012/1/28/2754749/the-playoff-threshold-in-the-west-and-miscellaneous-some-debunking

    Quisp read my article, and decided he needed to investigate a charge of plagiarism.
    For all his analytical ability, Quisp misread the opening paragraph as such, and in other ways, too. Quisp was then misled by my “11 days” clue, and found the wrong article. He thought I was referring to Hammond’s article of Jan 15th entitled, “What Is The Target Number For The Playoffs?” http://lakingsinsider.com/2012/01/27/what-is-the-target-number-for-playoffs/

    When, of course, Quisp saw no similarities other than that each article was about playoffs, Quisp made a decision. His decision was to bypass the Judge-Jury part and proceed straight to Executioner. Quisp failed to look for another clue, and he missed a very obvious one. I said, “…He has a right to publish whatever he wants, and who is to say he actually saw my article (Playoffs?…) complete with all he posted and more, especially the chart of teams’ games left.

    Of course, Hammond’s article of Jan 15th contains no chart of teams’ games remaining. There is no chart at all. So, a part of Hammond’s article that I say is included in both articles is missing from the article Quisp is examining. That did not occur to Quisp. Instead, Quisp decides that the articles, which I said matched so closely, don’t match at all. Of course they don’t; he is looking at the wrong article. I misled him, and he also failed to detect it despite other obvious clues.

    At that point, Quisp has options. He could simply dismiss my statements as incorrect and go on about his day. He could make a comment on S&S since he is currently reading my post at S&S, something like, “Hey, I don’t get it, they don’t match” and maybe we would figure out the mixup. He could post an objection on S&S citing facts that don’t match up, as a challenge to which I could respond. Or, Quisp could use his incorrect version of the “facts” as material on his own site, and use ridicule to mock my post in a public forum.
    Quisp chose the latter.

    Quisp therefore chose not only the most complicated path, but the most adversarial. Why should this generate hostility? Why should there be created such a likelihood of blog-on-blog violence? I did not seek conflict; I will also not allow my reputation (such as it is) to be sullied unfairly, as I sully it well enough all by myself every damn day.

    What warrants Quisp’s condescension and cruelty? Why does he deem himself the overseer of all that is written? What justifies his purview, and why does he so often seek any opportunity to point out trivialities in other’s work?

    Quisp copied my article in whole, presumably, but then deleted portions of it and substituted bracketed ellipses, like these- […] to indicate the missing content. Somehow, my chart of team’s remaining games was deleted, which is curious. It is curious because it was both the central point of my article from which all conclusions were drawn, and it was also was the critical element I mentioned when I compared Hammond’s article to mine. But Quisp deleted it when he set out to ridicule me.

    Quisp original content:
    “Given the blogger’s outrage, I was interested to check out the blogger’s original post to see if it bore any similarity to Rich’s post.” […]
    Shorter Surly/Scribe: The Kings have a lot of road games. They can’t afford losing streaks.
    Shorter Hammond: 95 points might be enough to make the playoffs.
    I don’t actually see how the two posts are related. My advice would be to take your medication in the morning and do your blogging in the afternoon.”

    He describes, “blogger’s outrage.” Outrage? Maybe, but come on; the opening paragraph is written with levity, the butt of the joke is myself, and I have already dealt with the entire plagiarism issue. Is this not feigned outrage if any? The whole point is that I am joking about being pissed, and that the pretend pissed off is irrational. Tell me, is it not obviously tongue-in-cheek to put in a HEADLINE “Don’t Tell Hammond?” I mean, am I really using the best way to conceal something from Hammond when I use his name in the headline? Hello?

    “My advice would be to take your medication in the morning and do your blogging in the afternoon.” So, not only is he using my material to generate content for his site, based on faulty conclusions, now he is ridiculing me? He doesn’t challenge me on any of the conclusions of the work, but focuses on a charge of plagiarism that isn’t there and bases his ridicule on an ancillary reference to the posts being similar. He finds the wrong post, declares it doesn’t match, and ridicules me for it. He summarizes my article; “Shorter Surly/Scribe: The Kings have a lot of road games. They can’t afford losing streaks.” If that is what the article is truly about, why is he so focused on non-existent accusations of plagiarism? I’ll tell you why- because it works for him.

    Quisp has a history of opining on the editorial worthiness and craft of fellow bloggers, in a condescending and hyperbolic tone. If I am challenged on this I will do the work of finding those links. And if I am alone in thinking that he is overly analytical I would be stunned.

    It may seem I am oversensitive to such few words of disparagement, but you see, Quisp and I have a history. That history includes him dogging me to other sites (B of C) and also banning me from commenting at his own site. So if it seems convenient to you that he chose not to ask me directly under my own thread, but rather ridiculed me at a location where I was unable to respond directly, then the convenience you sense agrees with what I sensed upon reading it.

    After I read his post, I responded with anger, to the point where I was actually feeling the outrage Quisp wrongly assigned me earlier. Then, I made another mistake; I failed to recognize that Quisp had block-quoted the Hammond article he thought I was comparing mine to, the wrong article. I am so pissed that I gloss over the article he block-quotes and do not notice it is the wrong article.

    Now, the process is fully corrupted; I have become my enemy. I write a point-by-point detail of all the points of comparison between the articles and I call Quisp “intellectually dishonest” for saying they don’t match, and for deleting the chart. I make the exact same mistake he did; I fail to see that the article he is talking about has no chart. Now, I’m an asshole, too. But here is the difference; I don’t publish my diatribe in a forum where Quisp cannot respond. No, I don’t vilify and ridicule him in a place where I know he is incapable of responding, as he did with me. Instead, I e-mail to him directly and challenge him to publish it. Boy, did I set him straight! Or, so I thought.

    Quisp reads, publishes and responds to my e-mail, and gets about halfway through when finally one of the two assholes (him) finally sees that WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT HAMMOND ARTICLES. At which point, there could be a deflation of hostilities, but instead, Quisp takes the opportunity to call me a dumbshit. My e-mail had no personal insults like this. I do call him intellectually dishonest, but there are no schoolyard epithets.

    When Quisp detects the mixup, we get an insight into his thinking. He found an article from 11 days before mine (due to my mistake) but which article is missing the major ingredient (the chart) that I used to describe the correct article (his mistake). When he realizes this he says, “Dumbshit. You’re posting a link to the wrong article. You compared your work (on 1/16) to Hammond’s work “a full 11 days later” (on 1/27). That’s the Hammond post on the playoff threshold, quoted by me in this post on this site (and in fact, it’s the subject of this post — not to mention the title). You said ELEVEN DAYS in your post, but now you’re whipping out an entirely different Hammond post, written the day before. Which no one ever brought up, and which I never read. You only think you brought it up, but since you miscounted and said “eleven” instead of “ten” — and didn’t bother to provide a link to the Hammond article in question in your original story, nor to reference any specifics of it in any way, you only managed to confuse the shit out of everyone…”

    So, he says I’m “posting a link to the wrong article.” But there is no link, which he immediately criticizes me for having omitted in the very same paragraph… “didn’t bother to provide a link to the Hammond article in question in your original story.” Also, as he continues to tell me I cited the wrong article, he says I failed to, “reference any specifics of it in any way” and yet I did; I specifically mentioned the charts as being nearly identical. What’s more, I mentioned this specific similarity in the opening paragraph of Jan 26 and also in the e-mail that detailed all the similarities between articles. Charts being similar has been the basis of comparison all along, yet Quisp thinks I “never referenced any specifics of it in any way?”

    We BOTH screwed up, me first, then him. But to him? It’s all my fault, which can only be proven by saying things that aren’t true. He contradicts himself, accuses me of doing something which I did not do (provide a link), and next he says I didn’t do a critical thing (cite specific content like CHARTS) when in reality I did do that thing, and did it twice.

    Quisp also says, after he realizes he has been looking at the wrong Hammond article, “What’s funny is that you’re trying to make me look stupid by suggesting that I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between an analysis of a schedule made on 1/16 and another one made on 1/26. When the problem actually is that you can’t count.” No, I was trying to point out that he was making himself look stupid. My article of Jan 16 is an analysis of the schedule, while Hammond’s article of the 26th is a talk about points. Just ask Quisp; here, again, is HIS summary of Hammond’s article; “Shorter Hammond: 95 points might be enough to make the playoffs.” The word “schedule” does not appear in Hammond’s article of the 15th at all, yet Quisp cheats by saying it was about the schedule. It was about the BUBBLE, not about how the schedule would affect the BUBBLE RACE.

    I read that response and sent him a private e-mail. The post on his site remained intact without further comment from him in response to that e-mail. He did not reply via e-mail to me, either. He did not reply at all. The post stood as top content on the home page until today, when new articles appeared. It is therefore clear Quisp has moved on and has no intention of any gentlemanly reply to my e-mail. As such, I am writing this now, to set the record straight.

    If it costs me the privilege of writing new articles for S&S, I regret that but so be it. I admit I am indulging myself, and perverting their hockey blog into a personal forum. I am doing this because I made a promise to myself the last time Quisp pulled this kind of crap on me that I would not tolerate it ever again.

    I have been held to public ridicule in a place where I cannot respond, over subject matter that has been misinterpreted. I have been charged with making accusations that I did not make, and to whatever degree I even dealt with the idea of plagiarism was done with levity, irony and sarcasm. I was told to take meds because Quisp feels he can be cruel with impunity, and it is easy to feel that way when he is shitting on someone that can’t even post a response.

    As I said in that most recent e-mail to Quisp: “I am a novice blogger. I have made many comments; I have made about 6 or 7 original articles. I am new at it; with all your experience, you are an asshole about little mistakes. Did I ever come in and ridicule you about editing errors?
    Did I ever come in and publicly embarrass you intentionally with no provocation? What drives this in you?
    So you found some errors: bully for you. Bully as in bully, not as used by Teddy Roosevelt. Yes, I should have included a link to Hammond’s original article; the fact is I don’t know how to do it. I do not post articles directly to the site, I e-mail them and they are later posted. It was un-thorough of me not to put a link in the e-mail, and also not to ask Bobby Scribe to do so in the article when it posted. I have no problem admitting it; I made a rookie error.
    Your original intent, talking about meds, etc., was to be mean and to embarrass me. You have accomplished that, but in so doing you pick on someone that is only making an honest effort and is not perfect; I feel no shame.
    In my ethos, you have more so embarrassed yourself, and shamefully. I am actually sad for you; you have so much intelligence and yet you spend so little effort using it when you could be tactful or kind. Instead, it’s all about who else is wrong and how right you are, to an extent similar to exhibitionism.
    Brings to mind ‘Ivory Tower’ and all that… ‘From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a willful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension.’ Is that not you?”

    And today, Quisp makes the following entry, in the final comment of his thread as of this writing, in response to this question from “defrim65”- “Reading all this again,
    Does anybody even know if Hammond even knows who Quisp, or player-X are? Lol” Bravo de-frim65, salute.

    Quisp writes: “mostly (entirely) rich knows me because before i was a blogger i was a commenter on his blog going back many years
    as were surly and bobby and many others who have graduated, if that’s the word for it. player-x he may know as a commenter whose comments he sometimes has to delete.”

    Yeah, that is Quisp. The prime directive is met: he is self-elevating. He has assumed stature for himself because he has “graduated,” and secondly he diminishes another’s stature by being vindictive, petty, all that. But also, he is unflagging in his nasty attitude, seizing opportunities to just be mean. He’s not even clever about it, really. It’s an ego-feed, it’s blatant, and it’s ugly. With this type you can’t win, because the two sides could never agree on the rules of conduct. Decorum is a concept missing from this person, overshadowed by ego. I am gonna send him an e-mail with just this link. I doubt whether it will any longer matter to me whether he responds.

    So, now I can move on. Back to hockey, and away from some needlessly concocted
    imbroglio based on spiteful condescension from a cruel picayune masquerading as a self-anointed editor-at-large. Hopefully, I will still be allowed to at least comment here. We’ll see. Groucho Marx has been attributed with having said, “I don’t care to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.” Well, I do want to be a part of this club, but if I can’t I would certainly understand.

    The moral of the story? Never give a four-year-old a megaphone in the middle of a party. In this case, maybe Quisp is the four year old, or maybe I am. Or maybe it’s both.

    • My personal feeling is that you are too hard on yourself and too hard on me. What i said was, “I don’t see how the two posts are related.” And then, the part that upset you, I suggested taking your medication in the morning and blogging in the afternoon. That was my way of saying, I think you were over-reacting. I myself take my medication in the morning. This is not the most horrible thing anybody ever said to anyone else. I would also point out that I was not (am not) treating you any differently than I do (to pick a name) Larry Brooks of the New York Post when he writes something I think is nutty. People say what i write is crazy several times a day.

      You keep mentioning the fact that you were banned on JftC. The reason for that — I had to look it up actually — is that you were distracting the population with excessively long overly personal hijacking of threads. I have no idea what Rich’s reason was for deleting your comments directed at me on his site, since I never saw the comments before they were deleted and only had the reports of others who did see them, to go on. But in my case, you were banned because you were hijacking threads and creating lots of adverse response from the other members of the community. It is actually part of my job description — maybe even the primary part — to ensure than my corner of SB Nation is a pleasant place for Kings fans. At JftC, I have made only maybe five exceptions to my original “no banning” policy. I never banned any of the Devils trolls who were visited upon us during the Summer of Kovalchuck. In fact, the other handful of banned posters were all serial trolls (habitual trolls banned on multiple sites on the network).

      I do not think you are a troll, and I did not “ban” you with any kind of glee or satisfaction. In general, my experience of interacting with you is that you seem to misinterpret the intent of other posters (I am primarily not referring to myself here) and then go off on excessively long and distracting diatribes. I might get snarky or sarcastic, and I will respond when provoked (though I try to stick to the facts). And I can be insensitive. That’s a hazard of blogging. It is standard operating procedure for sports bloggers to disagree with each other and call each other’s opinions stupid (etc.) in somewhat colorful language. But I do try to stick to the subject matter and give people the benefit of the doubt.

      Accordingly, I am happy to unban you from JftC as a gesture of good faith. I only ask that you keep an open mind regarding the intent and motivations of the others in the community, myself included.

      p.s. I couldn’t read your whole comment here. It was just too long.

      p.p.s. ironically, now that I understand which Hammond post you were talking about, I agree with your comparison.

      Good luck with your blogging.

      Q

  13. I’m disappointed that I seem to have killed the thread.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,084 other followers

%d bloggers like this: