"Dynastic" teams in the O6

[MadLuke]

In sports, a dynasty is a team or individual that dominates their sport or league for an extended length of time

As if someone making an official list of something like that can have some strong expert opinion to close debate.

I am sure there is some official list of the best restaurant as well that exists and if the owner of HFBoards call ours that we make right now the official HFboards Dynasty list then we would have our official list to go against their official list.

 

[Staniowski]

Yes, there's no official list of dynasties, or rankings of teams, or players, or anything. They are all a matter of opinion.

The problem with dynasties is that they're a relic of the past, soon to be the distant past. It's extremely hard for dynasties to exist now.

The result is that we have weaker teams qualifying as dynasties (according to some definitions), and better teams not qualifying.

 

[MadLuke]

The problem with dynasties is that they're a relic of the past

The Chiefs could have had arguably the "greatest" one had they just won. Tampa Bay could have "easily" won 3 cup in a row and would have been hard but could have won 4.

They went on a 128 pts regular season, cup, cup, cup final run.

The Hawks were a contract or cap rising timing away to have a good shot at being one or the 95-02 Wings, Avs getting an extra push that blocked them.

 

[VanIslander]

I am irked by this thread's title 'cuz: What was a dynasty was CLEAR in the O6.

Since then you would be laughed out of a room if the Islanders and Oilers were not included.

Doubty air quotes "Dynastic" became a thing in the '90's about the Wings & Devils.

Many elegantly distinguished dominant teams from a dynasty team.

 

[daver]

I am irked by this thread's title 'cuz: What was a dynasty was CLEAR in the O6.

Since then you would be laughed out of a room if the Islanders and Oilers were not included.

Doubty air quotes "Dynastic" became a thing in the '90's about the Wings & Devils.

Many elegantly distinguished dominant teams from a dynasty team.

When you have more than one "dynasty" team playing at the same time, it becomes a little less clear doesn't it?

When you have three teams winning every Cup from 1942 to 1969 it becomes less clear that the FIVE dynasties over that timeframe should be revered while no team in the past 45 years is deserving of that historical acknowledgement of greatness doesn't it?

Personally, I would make three in a row the standard for the 06 so remove the '50s Wings and the late '60s Habs to the Honourable Mention category, and reduce the '60s Leafs to '62 to '64.

I think post 1990, two Cups in a row plus other notable success can be argued as the standard to join the '50s Wings and late '60s Habs in the HM category with the Hawks being an exception.

The Wings from '95 to '02
The Pens from '08 to '17
The Hawks from '10 to '15
The Bolts from '15 to '22

 

[VanIslander]

Because you don't like the distribution, you try to re-define the meaning of the word?

 

[jigglysquishy]

From 1948-49 through 1954-55, the Red Wings

Lead the NHL in regular season points 8 seasons in a row
Won 4 Stanley Cups
Made another Stanley Cup Final

 

[daver]

Because you don't like the distribution, you try to re-define the meaning of the word?

As noted in the wikipedia link and by another poster, calling a team a dynasty is subjective. Having a "dynastic" team effectively in every year of the O6, and zero in the past 45 years, is somewhat of a call to wonder if the term got watered down due to only one of three teams winning year and year out is it not?

I am sure the NHL is happy to have any attention to it's history by glorifying many teams as dynasties. That requires a grain of salt.

 

[VanIslander]

The last dynasty was the Oilers. Before that the Islanders.
None since.
Heil Bettman if you want.
The NHL has heralded "competiveness" for decades.
That sells in November.

 

[bobbyking]

winning a cup In a 6 team league isn't impressive at all

 

[MadLuke]

winning a cup In a 6 team league isn't impressive at all

A bit of a 2 edged sword, some year beating Detroit followed by MTL to win it all would have been quite impressive, like the Czech winning in 1998 the gold in a 8 teams (6 real one, Belarus-Kazakhstan did not have a realistic shot at it) tourney was impressive.

If in 1957 the Bruins after beating the Wings beat MTL... harder or easier to do than what some 1970s cup winners had to do ?

Winning being impressive depends on who you beat, quantity can be correlated to that, but that not the only metric.

It can be easier for the superteams to win often if there is only 2 round obviously, but with no draft lottery, cap, etc... there is something more impressive to become a superteams when you have more control over it.

Winning the Crosby, Mackinnon or McDavid lottery is not impressive at all, building over decade a scouting, a big talent development network excellence, social fervor, etc... that turn you into a powerhouse, in many ways that more impressive.