Comments on: Los Angeles Kings: December Swoon Is More Myth Than Fact

By: Gann Matsuda

Gann Matsuda — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:19:25 +0000

There is more than one way to define a December Swoon. You can look at it, for example, by not comparing their December record only to their October/November record each season, as some seem stuck on. My analysis used a broader perspective. In other words, there are several different ways to look at the numbers and just as many ways to interpret it. You seem to be stuck on one way. It is NOT the only way.

By: kf98

kf98 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:43:37 +0000

no, your main point is not to say it’s a matter of perception. the main body of your article clearly says the december swoon is a myth. to be fair, it may very well be. but the data you put forth does not support your conclusion.

By: Gann Matsuda

Gann Matsuda — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:27:57 +0000

Perhaps. But, as I said, when it really comes down to it, it’s really a matter of perception. One could look at the numbers a few different ways and they’d all have some validity.

Another point…is how the Kings do in December really that much worse than they do overall?

By: kf98

kf98 — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:23:12 +0000

Interesting article, but not completely accurate. a more appropriate statistic would be comparing the actual win percentages of each month (or win % in december vs. the rest of the season), not win percentage in december vs. how many seasons the kings finished at or below .500.

for example: let’s say this season the kings have a .400% during december vs. .500% the rest of the season; they would finish with a record below .500. according to you, december wouldn’t be a slide, since they finished below .500 for the season. but in reality, it would be only because of that month that the kings finished below .500…

By: triplcrown

triplcrown — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:02:18 +0000

Hey, at least the Kings are undefeated on February 30th.

By: Gann Matsuda

Gann Matsuda — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:14:37 +0000

That’s great stuff JG. I remember the Forum always having the Ice Capades in town, but I didn’t know those details.

By: JGSmall

JGSmall — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:35:18 +0000

In the days of old, the Kings would have a two week mid December road trip so the Forum could book the Ice Capades. For the ice show the Forum would build up a smaller portion of the ice surface to about 3/4″ and raise the ice temp to make it soft for the performances. When the show concluded and the Kings returned, the Forum staff would shave the ice back down to the standard NHL surface (the Zamboni would be caked in white for weeks from the coloring added to hide NHL lines). It would take a week or so for the ice to stabilize to the lower temperature. The long road trip often was used for an excuse for poor results in December.

By: Gann Matsuda

Gann Matsuda — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:32:46 +0000

As I said, the comparison I made was to their overall record. When you look at those numbers, the Kings haven’t done much worse in December than they’ve done overall.

Of course, it’s all based on perception, really. How do you choose to look at the numbers? Depends on your point of view, which really was my point.

I too thought that December was an especially disastrous month for the Kings…until I did the research for this story.

By: Bob Bobson

Bob Bobson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:57:10 +0000

So basically, it’s not that we suck in December so much as we just suck overall ? Nice.

This is actually a good point Gann. Since I started watching the Kings it always seemed like December was a painful time for the team. Not sure why but the focus (to me at least) was always to get past December.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:57:52 +0000

Wait a minute. You just said that out of 40 years of Kings hockey, they were at or above .500 a total of 16 times (11 winning + 5 even). That means 24 times they were below .500. That sounds like fact to me, not myth.