The Rangers weren't the best team to not win the Cup either of those years.Either the 2014 or 2015 Rangers. Those teams were loaded, and Hank was playing out of his damn mind. Unfortunately, they ran into the inferno that was the LA Kings in '14, and just ran out of gas in the Final. The 2015 team should have beaten Tampa in the ECF, but crapped the bed in games 6 & 7. I'm convinced they would have beaten Chicago for the Cup that year had they advanced.
LA was a defensive powerhouse that struggled to score goals. Nashville was middle of the pack in every statistical category.Why not? LA was a great team and won the Cup from the 16th seed. Regular season success is not necessarily indicative of the quality of players that occupy the roster.
With one of the elite backends...an extremely good goalie and a pretty deep (until injuries) forward corps.LA was a defensive powerhouse that struggled to score goals. Nashville was middle of the pack in every statistical category.
Canucks in the 10/11 season had a better record outside of their division than within it. Bruins won the Cup. It is what it is. Why not leave it there instead of pushing weird narratives?Well in a division as historically bad as the 2010-11 and 2011-12 Northwest its very easy for a flawed team to get back to back President's Trophies
2010-11: Canucks are the only playoff team in the division. the others are 17th, 21st, 29th, 30th in the league
2011-12: Canucks are the only playoff team in the division. the others are 17th, 20th, 24th, 29th in the league
The poster you quoted probably only did surface-level research. Once you look into the numbers more, you realize that the weak division narrative doesn't really hold up.Canucks in the 10/11 season had a better record outside of their division than within it. Bruins won the Cup. It is what it is. Why not leave it there instead of pushing weird narratives?