48 game season is perfectly legit for a stanley cup winner,,,read this
- Thread starter tailgunner
- Start date
Kane One
Registered User
The whole "it still takes 16 wins" argument makes no sense. Saying "it still takes 16 wins" contradicts your last argument because during that time, you needed 8 wins.
If you wanted to just say "until 1947, there were less than 48 games," then you should have left out the rest.
If you wanted to just say "until 1947, there were less than 48 games," then you should have left out the rest.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 35,726
- 23,011
I would add an asterisk that this is the least of my personal concerns,not only because I simply want hockey but we shouldn't go around thinking that the cup is ours to collect this year either.
The fact that we have a shot, and that shot is good enough to really want a season this year doesn't mean we have to start counter-arguing points from angry bitter fans 5 months beforehand.
The fact that we have a shot, and that shot is good enough to really want a season this year doesn't mean we have to start counter-arguing points from angry bitter fans 5 months beforehand.
Kane One
Registered User
Around playoff time, watch ESPN mention how the Cup would be tainted, even though they never mentioned how the Heat won the Finals with like 60-something games.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,356
it was so much easier to win the cup back then, in 1928 rangers played a 44 game season and only less than 8 wins was all that was required to win the cup....if this season is played, whoever wins the cup is well deserving of it
Kane One
Registered User
Yeah, but saying "You still need 16 wins" doesn't mean anything. The only thing that makes your argument good is saying that there were less than 48 games in the early days.
I actually agree with everything else and I've used that argument. Everything else makes no sense.
BR19MG10
Registered User
BR19MG10
Registered User
I wonder how many of you change your toon if the Rangers were a bad team right now. And to say they played 40 some odd games in the 1940's, how many teams where there? Did you want them to play each other 15 times in a season.
have every team play every other team twice and give the cup to the highest team. same number of games.
ThurmNYY
Registered User
i think it is apples and oranges to compare the two era's.
back then 44 games was like a full season today, the ice stunk, the skates stunk.
the equipment barely provided any protection and goaltenders stopped pucks with their faces.
the goal posts were pipes stuck inside drilled holes in the ice and they did not move so when you slide into the post at a high rate you got seriously banged up.
the sport of hockey can be and always had its share of violence but back in the day it was pure brutality.
i read books about the old days where several guys would get carted off the ice on a stretcher on any given night with serious injuries.
there have been stories about teams going through multiple goaltenders in a game due to serious injuries.
today the guys are bigger faster and ten times healthier as well as have every advantage you can have and they are truly talented.
back in those days they were treated like cattle in a slaughterhouse on display for pure entertainment probably getting paid squat to do it.
it may have been shorter seasons but i think you would be stretching it saying they had it easy or it was easier back then.
there are plenty of good books and stories about how it was back then and it is all truth and fact and it is amazing what they had to do and deal with back then. and although the players work just as hard and deserve what they get today it really puts it into perspective in how lucky they are today and what fools the nhl and nhlpa look like.
NY looked like the walking dead by the middle of round 2, lets see if they can figure that one out first before we plan asterisks and parade routes.
Blue Suede Shoes
hound dog
- May 5, 2012
- 1,791
- 0
I heard a player say in an interview "48 games - it's going to be a race to the playoffs, right away".
I like that: a 48 game race to the playoffs. It's a good metaphor. If most seasons are a long distance marathon; where teams have to push through injuries and battle on, this year is like a sprint; an all-out, intense, mad dash for the finish line.
And then the real battle begins.
I'm excited for this season.
I like that: a 48 game race to the playoffs. It's a good metaphor. If most seasons are a long distance marathon; where teams have to push through injuries and battle on, this year is like a sprint; an all-out, intense, mad dash for the finish line.
And then the real battle begins.
I'm excited for this season.
Boruto
.
- Jun 27, 2011
- 15,627
- 436
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Can you define easier?
The odds to win the cup may have been greater than they are today, but the road to that victory was definitely not easier that it is today. The players in those days were true warriors.
That being said, it still seems that even though the odds of the winning the cup are 1/30 on paper, the same teams are generally in contention, so again, I don't think it was any easier to win the cup in the dawn of the NHL.
It was easier because all that was needed was 8 wins in the playoff year to win the cup, there were only 6 teams, the top 4 made the playoffs, if you were below 500 you could still make the playoffs and win the cup, the 1938 blackhawks won the cup with a below 500 record, they got hot at the right time and won the cup
Blue Suede Shoes
hound dog
- May 5, 2012
- 1,791
- 0
Haha no, sorry guys, I'm a Nucks fan... interestingly enough, located in the same place as you.
I pulled up a random thread, thinking it was on the main board. That's what happens when you don't read a thread before posting I guess.
Incidentally, however, the Rangers are one of my favourite teams.
Also, just an fyi, I have the Rangers as the SCF team from the East, easily, with the addition of Nash. You guys are a powerhouse.
Dangleberry
Registered User
The Gloaming
23
It was not easier to win the Cup in the O6 days. Mathematically, it was, but not when you think about it. The ice was HORRIBLE. Why do you think there were so many long overtimes and 1-0 games back then? If I'm not mistaken, the Rangers' longest OT games are from the 20's and 30's. Not to mention having basically no safety equipment, pucks flying into goalies without helmets and padding.
