Ranking the Most Successful Franchises in the Expansion Era

[devbouz12]

Lol tell that to the warriors who one them in the 60’s-80’s!!!! Might have been less teams back then but the games were played tougher compared to today!!!

You sound like grandpa telling war stories.

 

[sabremike]

Which team has the highest win percentage?

Vegas, but obviously that's an aberration. It's actually Montreal, which really isn't surprising. IIRC throwing out Vegas Flyers are 2nd, Bruins are 3rd, Nashville 4th, Ducks 5th, Wild 6th, Sabres 7th. Found it via Wikipedia by doing a Google search of "NHL All Time Team Winning Percentages".

 

[SladeWilson23]

Avalanche should be pretty high, especially considering their age

I put Colorado ahead of LA personally.

 

[Sugi21]

You sound like grandpa telling war stories.

 

[cgf]

#10 is debatable between LA and Colorado

Fair enough, I just feel like the Avs in their existence have matched LA’s success in a much shorter time frame...and look like they have a cup caliber core coming together once again.

 

[Machinehead]

Fair enough, I just feel like the Avs in their existence have matched LA’s success in a much shorter time frame...and look like they have a cup caliber core coming together once again.

I vote for the Avs because you guys didn't make me sad.

 

[cgf]

I vote for the Avs because you guys didn't make me sad.

This, we only made FLA & NJ fans sad. Which is ok because Florida doesn’t have any fans & nobody likes NJ fans anyway.

 

[Kingsfan1]

LA over Colorado?

Colorado won 2 Cups 5 years apart , Kings had a very dominant 3 year run. Almost won 3 Cups in a row

 

[Machinehead]

This, we only made FLA & NJ fans sad. Which is ok because Florida doesn’t have any fans & nobody likes NJ fans anyway.

f***ing post of 2018 right here.

 

[cgf]

Colorado won 2 Cups 5 years apart , Kings had a very dominant 3 year run. Almost won 3 Cups in a row

By that same token we had a cup caliber team for more than just 3 years. *shrug* You almost won 3 cups in a row the same way we almost won 5 cups in a row. You got beat by another cup caliber powerhouse at your height just like we were.

There were just more cup caliber powerhouses around in the DPE cause they were easier to keep together before the cap.

 

[Not So Mighty]

The thing is how you define success over that span? If you are just counting cups a team like the Isles are very high. If you go by all time winning percentage they are 21st. In contrast the Sabres have never won it all yet our all time winning percentage is 8th in league history and 4 of the teams above us (Vegas, Wild,Preds,Ducks) are relatively new. Habs, Flyers and Bruins are the other team.

The Ducks are 25 years old. I think that's plenty sufficient for a winning percentage sample size.

 

[sabremike]

Fair enough, I just feel like the Avs in their existence have matched LA’s success in a much shorter time frame...and look like they have a cup caliber core coming together once again.

The problem is that it appears you are ignoring the years the franchise was the Nordiques. If you count that things are different. However I don't recall if they ever won the WHA. If they did I count that as a point in your favor.

 

[sabremike]

The Ducks are 25 years old. I think that's plenty sufficient for a winning percentage sample size.

Fair, but I was putting it in perspective for us by comparing us to the teams that have existed for almost our whole existence. The Ducks have had very few real bad years, that is completely true and reflected by the win percentage.

 

[cgf]

The problem is that it appears you are ignoring the years the franchise was the Nordiques. If you count that things are different. However I don't recall if they ever won the WHA. If they did I count that as a point in your favor.

True. I wasn't accounting for the Nordique years at all; who did win 1 in the WHA.

 

[nturn06]

True but winning one cup in the 60s is worth more than winning zero ever.

Are you saying something along the lines "We are happy with the second worst thing"?

 

[snowkiddin]

Well it’s only been one season since Vegas came to the league, so Washington

 

[b in vancouver]

It really depends on how you define it. Of course The Cup is the end-game however
The Oil and Isle above the Flyers and Bruins seems sorta ridiculous.
Penguins above the Devils seems wrong.
The Sharks haven't won a Cup but have damn successful.
The Flames have been competitive nearly every year of their existence.

I know you're looking at Cups as a determining factor but how about 105+ point seasons where fans get to enjoy hockey games, or reaching the Conference Finals, or making the playoffs?

Or balancing success versus failure?

Honestly. The early Isle's 80s team is one of my favourite of all-time but in what world would you think they've been more 'successful' than Boston?

How are The Hawks there? Recency bias? The Hawks were nothing for decades.
The Wings proved themselves with 20 years but weren't much either for two decades beforehand.

 

[b in vancouver]

without looking it up - if I balanced good years to bad years, cups, finals, conference finals, 100+ point seasons, etc.
#1 Montreal
#2 Boston
#3 Philadelphia
#4 New Jersey
#5 Detroit
#6 Pittsburgh
#7 San Jose
#8 Calgary
#9 Long Island
#10 Edmonton
#11 Chicago
#12 St. Louis

 

[RattsSSV]

without looking it up - if I balanced good years to bad years, cups, finals, conference finals, 100+ point seasons, etc.
#1 Montreal
#2 Boston
#3 Philadelphia
#4 New Jersey
#5 Detroit
#6 Pittsburgh
#7 San Jose
#8 Calgary
#9 Long Island
#10 Edmonton
#11 Chicago
#12 St. Louis

 

[Thenameless]

Penguins above the Devils seems wrong.

I'm curious as to how you come to this specific conclusion, when the OP's criteria is both team and individual success? Penguins have more Cup wins and appearances.

When I think of great Penguins, I think of Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin, Bowman, and quite a few more lesser stars that have contributed to their success. When I think of great Devils, I think of Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brodeur, Jacques Lemaire, and maybe Lou Lamoriello (none of which really have the same clout as the Penguin icons).

 

[Maestro84]

I'm curious as to how you come to this specific conclusion, when the OP's criteria is both team and individual success? Penguins have more Cup wins and appearances.

When I think of great Penguins, I think of Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin, Bowman, and quite a few more lesser stars that have contributed to their success. When I think of great Devils, I think of Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brodeur, Jacques Lemaire, and maybe Lou Lamoriello (none of which really have the same clout as the Penguin icons).

Yea as great as NDJ was from the mid 90's into the 2000's, they really have no argument for being a greater franchise than the Penguins.

Winning the cup is a "team achievement," so in this case, the # of cups are by the far the most important category when rating the success of a franchise

 

[b in vancouver]

I'm curious as to how you come to this specific conclusion, when the OP's criteria is both team and individual success? Penguins have more Cup wins and appearances.

When I think of great Penguins, I think of Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin, Bowman, and quite a few more lesser stars that have contributed to their success. When I think of great Devils, I think of Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brodeur, Jacques Lemaire, and maybe Lou Lamoriello (none of which really have the same clout as the Penguin icons).

Despite being around 15 more years did you know both teams have the same amount of 100+ point seasons?

or do we wash over before Mario and how they drafted high again for another half decade? Do we wash over the decades of futility as well as the terrible years in between Lemieux to Whitney?

First from '68 - '90 - the Penguins were consistently one of the worst teams in the league. They have a couple of years were they got above .500. That's it. They sucked!
Devils meanwhile took about 5 years (Gretzky called them a Mickey Mouse franchise) before they became one of the best teams.

Does consistency count for success?
For my money the Flyers are easily the most successful of the original expansion teams, despite them not being able to bring back the Cup since Clarke.
New Jersey and San Jose are easily the most successful of the second wave. (Vegas!)

The Oil, Hawks and Pens - despite winning Cups since expansion - have so many brutal years strewn in there that it's hard to over-look.

 

[b in vancouver]

Yea as great as NDJ was from the mid 90's into the 2000's, they really have no argument for being a greater franchise than the Penguins.

Winning the cup is a "team achievement," so in this case, the # of cups are by the far the most important category when rating the success of a franchise

It took the Penguins 26 bloody years to get 100 points!
They had a year of 53 points near two decades in!
Oh - sorry... that wasn't close to their worst year as the year before they had 38 points. They also 45.
Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin and a couple Cups might have you thinking they're successful - and if we were talking since 1990 you'd be right - but if it's since expansion.... come on.
20+ years - name the best couple players they had before Lemieux.

 

[Thenameless]

Despite being around 15 more years did you know both teams have the same amount of 100+ point seasons?

or do we wash over before Mario and how they drafted high again for another half decade? Do we wash over the decades of futility as well as the terrible years in between Lemieux to Whitney?

First from '68 - '90 - the Penguins were consistently one of the worst teams in the league. They have a couple of years were they got above .500. That's it. They sucked!
Devils meanwhile took about 5 years (Gretzky called them a Mickey Mouse franchise) before they became one of the best teams.

Does consistency count for success?
For my money the Flyers are easily the most successful of the original expansion teams, despite them not being able to bring back the Cup since Clarke.
New Jersey and San Jose are easily the most successful of the second wave. (Vegas!)

The Oil, Hawks and Pens - despite winning Cups since expansion - have so many brutal years strewn in there that it's hard to over-look.

That's a reasonable answer. I figured it might have something to do with the Penguins being bad for so long. Another thing that a lot of people tend to hold against them is their outrageous luck in the draft, and outright tanking for Lemieux. I don't have a problem that - I would have tanked for Lemieux too. And hating people for their good fortune is not good for one's health (not saying you're like that).

 

[Maestro84]

It took the Penguins 26 bloody years to get 100 points!
They had a year of 53 points near two decades in!
Oh - sorry... that wasn't close to their worst year as the year before they had 38 points. They also 45.
Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin and a couple Cups might have you thinking they're successful - and if we were talking since 1990 you'd be right - but if it's since expansion.... come on.
20+ years - name the best couple players they had before Lemieux.

Yea the pens were off to rough start with their franchise, but imo, what they've been able to accomplish over the last 30 years or so has more than made up for that bad start. Remember, this isn't like rating individual players, this is a thread for rating franchises, so the amount of cups won will always be the primary determinant for how successful a franchise is