A Table on NHL Team Success in the Salary Cap Era

[kerrabria]

I did some quick math this morning to quantify NHL team success during the 19 seasons of the Salary Cap Era (2005-24).

About the (very simple) formula:

• Making the playoffs is worth one point, and each playoff series victory is worth another point.
• Appearing in the Stanley Cup Final is a point itself (i.e., the Conference Finals is worth twice as much as Rounds 1 and 2), and winning the Cup is worth six points.
• So if a team wins the cup, this chart awards 12 points for that single postseason, and the runner-up gets five points.
• Additionally, winning the President's Trophy adds two points, (or the equivalent of making the playoffs and winning a round).
• Teams lose a point for each time they finished Bottom 5 in the league-wide standings.
• I chose not to include First Place Division finishes since it is so schedule dependent and it awarded so many extra points--especially with the pre-2014 alignment.

Additional Notes:

• I did not count the 2020 play-in round as part of the playoffs.
• As indicated, I did not count Thrashers and Coyotes' seasons towards Winnipeg and Utah's totals.
• Teams with tied total points are organized in alphabetical order.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDoldrums]

If you’re not going to make the playoffs most smart franchises would rather finish bottom 5 for the better draft pick so seems weird to punish that.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

If you’re not going to make the playoffs most smart franchises would rather finish bottom 5 for the better draft pick so seems weird to punish that.

This does seem like an issue and a stat that skews the results a bit for sure

 

[GOilers88]

If you’re not going to make the playoffs most smart franchises would rather finish bottom 5 for the better draft pick so seems weird to punish that.

This is way too simplified imo and a little silly.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

If you’re not going to make the playoffs most smart franchises would rather finish bottom 5 for the better draft pick so seems weird to punish that.

If you are purely looking at it from a results perspective, you shouldn’t care what a franchise does in terms of placement/draft picks for the next year.

You would knock them for the result and then would expect them to not be there again if a top pick is worth that much.

This is strictly results oriented.

 

[TheDoldrums]

If you are purely looking at it from a results perspective, you shouldn’t care what a franchise does in terms of placement/draft picks for the next year.

You would knock them for the result and then would expect them to not be there again if a top pick is worth that much.

This is strictly results oriented.

But the other things are a lot more tangible. Making the playoffs, winning a round, winning the Cup etc. Bottom 5 is a completely arbitrary thing. Why not bottom 6 or 7? It’s not really meaningful.

 

[kerrabria]

If you’re not going to make the playoffs most smart franchises would rather finish bottom 5 for the better draft pick so seems weird to punish that.

This does seem like an issue and a stat that skews the results a bit for sure

Even if you want your team to tank, if a franchise spends several years as a bottom feeder, that detracts from your success. I think it's worthwhile differentiating teams that were totally noncompetitive from bubble teams. It's a lot more impressive to build a winning team without throwing in the towel for five years and giving your fans nothing.

 

[Murzu]

Oh Toronto.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Even if you want your team to tank, if a franchise spends several years as a bottom feeder, that detracts from your success. I think it's worthwhile differentiating teams that were totally noncompetitive from bubble teams. It's a lot more impressive to build a winning team without throwing in the towel for five years and giving your fans nothing.

Also true

 

[kerrabria]

But the other things are a lot more tangible. Making the playoffs, winning a round, winning the Cup etc. Bottom 5 is a completely arbitrary thing. Why not bottom 6 or 7? It’s not really meaningful.

I agree that 5 is an arbitrary cutoff. But I feel like that's usually where the line is between teams that were pushovers all year long versus teams that could at least keep up. I definitely think there needs to be a penalty for awful years when you look at a time span this long. How would you do so?

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

But the other things are a lot more tangible. Making the playoffs, winning a round, winning the Cup etc. Bottom 5 is a completely arbitrary thing. Why not bottom 6 or 7? It’s not really meaningful.

You are right. The bottom five knock is arbitrary and is purely OP driven. That is what the OP arrived at for delineating from good and bad teams I guess but as you stated, there isn’t much discrepancy from team 5 to 6 worst team. A scale starting from the middle of the pack and accounting for overall record would make more sense but can understand that the OP had something in mind that was easier to showcase and comprehend for the average reader.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Honestly if you take a look at the list it mostly makes sense.

 

[kerrabria]

I'll be generous and say that Stanley Cup victories should trump all, and this formula should only be used as a tiebreaker. In that case, we'd have
1. Pittsburgh
2. Chicago
3. Tampa Bay
4. Los Angeles
5. Boston
6. Washington
7. Detroit
8. Carolina
9. Anaheim
10. Colorado
11. St. Louis
12. Vegas
13. Florida
14. Rangers
15. San Jose