45 Points in 34 Games…Is That Good?

Well, yes.

In ’74, the Kings had 47 points (18-5-11) and, in ’80, they had 47 points (22-9-3). Those are the only two seasons that beat or equal the Kings’ current record of 21-10-3. Oh, and they’re officially first in the West and 2nd overall. (Philadelphia — they of the quickie rebuild of two seasons ago — are now tied with Toronto for 28th overall. I bring up Philly because so many fans pointed to them as an example of how you can suck one year and “rebuild” in one summer. I guess, in a word, not.)


  8 comments for “45 Points in 34 Games…Is That Good?

  1. DougS
    December 12, 2009 at 11:52 PM

    But it’s hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons against seasons from before the whole overtime loss thing. That consolation point can really inflate the number of points a team can rack up in a season. A 100-point season used to be a big deal; now it just gets you into the playoffs. As you yourself pointed out in the last post, even as well as they’re doing, the Kings are just a slump away from falling out of the playoffs. They still have to keep winning and winning.

    Didn’t know Philly is 28th, though. Guess that whole “Lets grossly overpay for what’s left of Chris Pronger” thing isn’t working out as they’d planned….

    • quisp
      December 13, 2009 at 10:15 AM

      Re apples-to-apples: true. But that’s all we have, right? I mean, we still need/get to compare this year’s team to teams of the past. The same argument works with other mitigating factors, e.g. expansion (makes good teams seem great in a diluted talent pool), cold-puck era obstruction (makes bad teams better by allowing clutch and grab). As far as what gets you into the playoffs, it’s been a pretty consistent 93 points since I’ve been paying attention.

      The loser point is a problem. I wish they would eliminate it. It’s worth noting that the Kings only have three OT/SOLs. So comparisons aren’t that far off.

  2. James
    December 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

    Yeah, only seven points separating 1st and 8th…big road-trip coming up. As for Philly, word is that there is a big rift between the young guys, who are rumored to be big partiers, and the old guys.

  3. quisp
    December 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    Interesting. Where did you hear/read/see that? Party people + high expectations = disaster. See Montreal, Centennial Celebration.

  4. James
    December 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM

    Nice equation! That didn’t work out so well…

    It’s funny; my wife and I worked in China for two years and while there two of my colleagues were guys from Edmonton and Philly. Both were big puckheads so ever since we’ve chatted online and kept one another up to date on each team’s going-ons. Since last year my Philly friend has talked about some of the young players like Richards, Carter, Gagne, Giroux being big partiers. Then a couple weeks back I saw Scott Burnside’s article on ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=4715741.

    There’s a line halfway down where John Stevens talks about “off ice discipline” and then Burnside follows up with “We have no idea whether Richards and Carter and the rest of the youngsters whoop it up too much.”

    It could be B.S., but my buddy has seen players out drinking (heavily) the night before games or very soon after.

  5. James
    December 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM

    …didn’t work out so well for Montreal, that is.

  6. Pingback: More info
  7. Pingback: htc one x

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.