The 1962 to 1971 Black Hawks: No cups

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
26,375
6,144
Visit site
Is there a prevailing narrative as to why the Hawks never won the Cup again after 1961? They were a top team for most of those seasons during that stretch with a dual offensive threat in Hull and Mikita.

I don't think you can use the "they were up against dynasties" as dynasties were the norm, not the exception, in the O6 from 1947 to 1971.

Their GA went up significantly in the playoffs in comparison to the Habs and Leafs. Did they rely too much on their offense to win?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
19,064
14,317
Not enough depth to win more often that not against two very deep teams. Too much run and gun too perhaps.

Chicago also got to two game sevens in the Stanley Cup finals over this span, with a one goal difference in 1971 and in 1965 it was the year Hull suffered a second half of the season knee injury while at his peak. So the team was reasonably close and with a little luck things look better for Chicago. Plenty of teams can claim that though.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,290
1,082
They were giving up a lot of PP goals in the playoffs. Before they removed GF/GA data on NHL.com I could have sworn that it looked like they had tried a 4 defenceman PK unit in the playoffs one year. But from 1962-1971, 88 PPGA in 88 games. Worst rate in the NHL. Toronto was at 0.79 PPGA per game, and Montreal at 0.64.

They were 11-33 on the road, and even that's kind of inflated by a few wins in the expansion era. They couldn't win in Montreal (1-12) or Toronto (1-5). The Leafs didn't mind playing in Chicago (3-3), while Chicago's small ice may have been an issue for Montreal (2-10). Montreal's record in Chicago might have mirrored Chicago's in Montreal, if not for Tony Esposito allowing a 100 foot goal to Henri Richard.

Esposito played poorly in later round playoff matchups, and it's possible that Glenn Hall was tired from playing like an Iron Man. Mikita seems to have had a few more misses than you would hope for.
 

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,161
8,584
Regina, Saskatchewan
I probably watched a dozen 60s Chicago games in the last two years just to familiarize myself. Some are playoffs.

Mikita doesn't stand out to me at all. You notice Hull every shift. He's fast enough to lead the rush and fast enough to be back. He's the best player every time he steps on the ice. Mikita had lots of floater shifts. But when you look at the statline he still ends up with points.

I don't think he was that strong defensively mid 60s and that reputation really came home in the 70s. Not that he's ever bad in the games I'm watching, but compared to a Beliveau, Richard, Keon, or Kelly he's defensively the weakest.

Pilote has to do too much. Hall plays too much.

They have no depth and it shows against deep teams. Yes, they lost to dynasties a bunch, but they also lost to the middling Red Wings three times in the mid 60s.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
30,472
19,112
The Original Six Era was really a 3 + 3 kind of league rather than one with 6 competitive teams that could each win in a given year. The "Canadian teams" (including for these purposes, Detroit) near the talent pool were generally always pretty competitive and the "American teams" didn't have the same talent pipeline/scouting/were signing more scraps, and they were generally pretty bad. If you look at aggregates of finishes, stanley cups won and stanley cup appearances you can really see this big distinction.

It's really more of a surprise that Chicago had a competitive spurt in the 60s/early 70s than it is that they didn't win more Cups. They had a few really great players come up at the same time, but never really had the same depth as the teams that won more. One unfortunate thing from a timing standpoint is that as the depth improved to get them their most competitive squads (First Place in '67 and '70), that was when Pierre Pilote was getting older, he was 35 in '67, left after '68 and retired after '69.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,438
3,468
They were giving up a lot of PP goals in the playoffs. Before they removed GF/GA data on NHL.com I could have sworn that it looked like they had tried a 4 defenceman PK unit in the playoffs one year. But from 1962-1971, 88 PPGA in 88 games. Worst rate in the NHL. Toronto was at 0.79 PPGA per game, and Montreal at 0.64.
The Hawks had good depth players who could kill penalties early in the 60s, but then they let them go and didn't really replace them. Other than Eric Nesterenko, who was their once constant as a depth checker and penalty killer.

The 1961 Cup-winning team had Earl Balfour as a spare forward who specialized in killing penalties. He was on the ice for about 75% of their power play goals against and rarely played at even strength. In 61-62 and 62-63 they replaced Balfour with Bob Turner, a former Hab who specialized in being a fifth defenceman and playing forward while killing penalties. Turner was also on the ice for most power play goals against. In 1963-64 and going forward, they didn't replace Turner with a PK specialist. Instead, top 6 forwards like Bobby Hull, Bill Hay, and Chico Maki started killing penalties.

Their depth on the blueline also got weaker defensively. In 1960-61, when they won the Cup, their 3rd-5th defencemen were veterans Jack Evans, Dollard St Laurent, and Al Arbour. Evans and St Laurent were both an important part of their PK. By 1963-64, they were all gone and replaced by younger players Al MacNeil, Wayne Hillman, and Matt Ravlich. I wouldn't rate any of them as particularly strong defensively.

These changes generally took place when Billy Reay replaced Rudy Pilous as coach. But I don't know if the coaching change had anything to do with it. Tommy Ivan was general manager the whole time.

Earl Balfour as a penalty killer:
The Leader-Post

After the Hawks won the Cup in 1961, Boston drafted Balfour for $20,000 and dropped Bronco Horvath - who was just one season removed from leading the NHL in goals - to make room for him. That says something about the value teams put on Balfour's penalty killing. But Balfour refused to report to Boston and decided to play for Pittsburgh in the AHL instead.

 
Last edited:

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
512
435
The Original Six Era was really a 3 + 3 kind of league rather than one with 6 competitive teams that could each win in a given year. The "Canadian teams" (including for these purposes, Detroit) near the talent pool were generally always pretty competitive and the "American teams" didn't have the same talent pipeline/scouting/were signing more scraps, and they were generally pretty bad.
Chicago was terrible in the 50s, they were good in the 60s. What a weird post.


OT- Really before my time, my dad(habs fan) always thought Mikita was overrated, since beliveau used to dominate him in series matchups.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
10,420
5,970
What a weird post.
06 most regular season wins

Montreal: 855
Detroit.: 784
Toronto.: 725
----

Chicago.: 594
Boston..: 578
New York: 529


Playoff:
Montreal: 130
Detroit.: 97
Toronto.: 92
----

Chicago.: 39
Boston..: 39
New York: 15

-----------------------------
Cups:
Montreal: 10
Detroit.: 5
Toronto.: 9
----

Chicago.: 1
Boston..: 0
New York: 0



That league was 3+3 with a clear cut best 3 and the other 3.... is a weird post to you ? That the better question would be more how they achieved to win 1 instead of just 1 ?

You can disagree, but it is not weird and a quite common thought that talent in the 06 was quite concentrated in the MTL-TOR-DET franchises
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,438
3,468
It's not a "weird" post Gorksy, it's a historical observation. Anyone can look through seasons on an aggregated basis and come to that conclusion, what can be debated is the reasons why that was the case.

The Hawks were a decade behind Montreal, Toronto, and Detroit in creating a strong junior sponsorship network in Canada. In the early 50s, they depended on receiving players from other NHL teams in regular "help the Hawks" trades to fill out their roster.

Even in the mid-late 50s they were still receiving good players like Ted Lindsay and Jimmy Thomson, who were exiled to Chicago after trying to organize the players. And they benefitted from Detroit getting rid of some useful players after 1955, including Glenn Hall. But those trades were just more patchwork jobs because they didn't have a core of homegrown talent.

The real reason Chicago became a contender in the 60s after a decade in the basement was Tommy Ivan's work as general manager after he was hired in 1954. Under Ivan, the Hawks improved their sponsorship network and finally got their player acquisition and development to the level of other teams. Their 1960s teams were built on a regular pipeline of talent coming from their junior hockey system, starting with Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, and Pierre Pilote.
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
512
435
06 most regular season wins

Montreal: 855
Detroit.: 784
Toronto.: 725
----
Chicago.: 594
Boston..: 578
New York: 529


Playoff:
Montreal: 130
Detroit.: 97
Toronto.: 92
----
Chicago.: 39
Boston..: 39
New York: 15

-----------------------------
Cups:
Montreal: 10
Detroit.: 5
Toronto.: 9
----
Chicago.: 1
Boston..: 0
New York: 0



That league was 3+3 with a clear cut best 3 and the other 3.... is a weird post to you ? That the better question would be more how they achieved to win 1 instead of just 1 ?

You can disagree, but it is not weird and a quite common thought that talent in the 06 was quite concentrated in the MTL-TOR-DET franchises

Do the 60s only, which is what this thread is about. Pointless post.

It's not a "weird" post Gorksy, it's a historical observation. Anyone can look through seasons on an aggregated basis and come to that conclusion, what can be debated is the reasons why that was the case.
The 1950s were a bleak period for the Chicago Blackhawks. The team consistently languished at the bottom of the NHL standings, struggling to find their footing amidst strong competition from the other Original Six teams. Between the 1949-50 and 1958-59 seasons, the Blackhawks finished last in the league six times. A combination of poor management, lack of star power, and inconsistent play contributed to their woes. The Blackhawks' home games at the Chicago Stadium were sparsely attended, reflecting the disillusionment of a dwindling fan base.

The 1960s marked a period of significant change for the Blackhawks. The turnaround began with the astute management of Tommy Ivan, who became the general manager in 1954. Ivan's strategic vision and keen eye for talent were instrumental in revitalizing the team. One of his most significant moves was the acquisition of future Hall of Famer Glenn Hall in 1957. Hall, known as "Mr. Goalie," provided the Blackhawks with the stability and reliability they desperately needed in the net. His consistency and skill earned him numerous accolades and solidified the team’s defense.

Another pivotal figure was Bobby Hull, who debuted with the Blackhawks in 1957. Hull's explosive speed, powerful shot, and scoring prowess quickly made him one of the league's most electrifying players. He won the Art Ross Trophy as the league's leading scorer multiple times during the 1960s, becoming the face of the franchise and a fan favorite. Hull's partnership with Stan Mikita, another emerging star, created one of the most dynamic duos in NHL history. Mikita's playmaking abilities complemented Hull's goal-scoring talent, and together, they transformed the Blackhawks' offensive capabilities.

The culmination of the Blackhawks' resurgence came in the 1960-61 season when they won the Stanley Cup, their first championship since 1938. This victory was a testament to the team's improved performance and the effective strategies implemented by the management. The Blackhawks defeated the Detroit Red Wings in the finals, showcasing a blend of solid defense, stellar goaltending, and high-powered offense.

Throughout the 1960s, the Blackhawks remained a competitive force in the NHL, consistently finishing near the top of the standings and making several deep playoff runs. The decade also saw the development of other key players like Pierre Pilote, a defenseman who won the Norris Trophy as the league's best defenseman three times, and Phil Esposito, who later became a star in his own right.

The transformation of the Chicago Blackhawks in the 1960s from a struggling franchise to a championship team is a remarkable story of strategic rebuilding, effective management, and the emergence of key talent. The foundations laid during this decade not only brought immediate success but also established a winning culture that would benefit the organization for years to come. The contrast between the dismal performance of the 1950s and the triumphs of the 1960s underscores the impact of visionary leadership and the importance of building a cohesive and talented team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scribe114

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,797
3,412
The Maritimes
This topic comes up a lot. Obviously there are reasons people believe they should've performed better, won more Cups. I suppose the biggest reason is they had the two highest scorers, and the most decorated defenseman of the decade.

But the truth is they were never a great team, they were lucky to win even one Cup. They didn't really underachieve in the playoffs; they just didn't have very good teams.

Mikita is probably the most overrated star forward in NHL history. He just wasn't as good as most people think he was. He was never as good as his numbers, he was weak defensively during his best years, and he took a lot of unbelievably dumb penalties over many years.

Hull was a bit overrated, but much less than Mikita. Hull had great skills - some of them easily the best of that era. But there were also elements of emptiness to his game, e.g. compared to Howe. But Hull was a good player.

Pilote was talented in that era but he wasn't an all-time great in any sense. He wasn't any better than Gary Suter.

The Leafs and Habs were generally very strong and quite deep, and the Wings had some veteran savvy during the 1960s.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,439
9,684
NYC
www.youtube.com
The 1950s were a bleak period for the Chicago Blackhawks. The team consistently languished at the bottom of the NHL standings, struggling to find their footing amidst strong competition from the other Original Six teams. Between the 1949-50 and 1958-59 seasons, the Blackhawks finished last in the league six times. A combination of poor management, lack of star power, and inconsistent play contributed to their woes. The Blackhawks' home games at the Chicago Stadium were sparsely attended, reflecting the disillusionment of a dwindling fan base.

The 1960s marked a period of significant change for the Blackhawks. The turnaround began with the astute management of Tommy Ivan, who became the general manager in 1954. Ivan's strategic vision and keen eye for talent were instrumental in revitalizing the team. One of his most significant moves was the acquisition of future Hall of Famer Glenn Hall in 1957. Hall, known as "Mr. Goalie," provided the Blackhawks with the stability and reliability they desperately needed in the net. His consistency and skill earned him numerous accolades and solidified the team’s defense.

Another pivotal figure was Bobby Hull, who debuted with the Blackhawks in 1957. Hull's explosive speed, powerful shot, and scoring prowess quickly made him one of the league's most electrifying players. He won the Art Ross Trophy as the league's leading scorer multiple times during the 1960s, becoming the face of the franchise and a fan favorite. Hull's partnership with Stan Mikita, another emerging star, created one of the most dynamic duos in NHL history. Mikita's playmaking abilities complemented Hull's goal-scoring talent, and together, they transformed the Blackhawks' offensive capabilities.

The culmination of the Blackhawks' resurgence came in the 1960-61 season when they won the Stanley Cup, their first championship since 1938. This victory was a testament to the team's improved performance and the effective strategies implemented by the management. The Blackhawks defeated the Detroit Red Wings in the finals, showcasing a blend of solid defense, stellar goaltending, and high-powered offense.

Throughout the 1960s, the Blackhawks remained a competitive force in the NHL, consistently finishing near the top of the standings and making several deep playoff runs. The decade also saw the development of other key players like Pierre Pilote, a defenseman who won the Norris Trophy as the league's best defenseman three times, and Phil Esposito, who later became a star in his own right.

The transformation of the Chicago Blackhawks in the 1960s from a struggling franchise to a championship team is a remarkable story of strategic rebuilding, effective management, and the emergence of key talent. The foundations laid during this decade not only brought immediate success but also established a winning culture that would benefit the organization for years to come. The contrast between the dismal performance of the 1950s and the triumphs of the 1960s underscores the impact of visionary leadership and the importance of building a cohesive and talented team.
This was written by chatGPT hahaha
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,797
3,412
The Maritimes
Re: Chicago's depth....one thing that doesn't actually get mentioned much about the 1960s Blackhawks is that they traded three forwards to Boston in the summer of '67, and all three became significant players, and scorers, in the NHL. One of the three, in fact, almost immediately became the best scorer in the world when he left Chicago, and he remained that for many years - a much better scorer than either Hull or Mikita.

I think the Hull - Mikita dynamic was ultimately a problem for Chicago. They became too dependent on them, especially Hull, who was often double and triple shifted. And I think it prevented them from recognizing they had some other good players, some of whom weren't developing properly.
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
189,241
22,675
Chicagoland
Why cut off at 1971? They finished first in West in 72 in final year with Hull and then lost to Habs in 73 finals in 6 games

Most years they were not as good as other top teams, but they choked in 71. Really no other way to describe how they lost in games 6 and 7 (At home) to Habs in SCF
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
26,375
6,144
Visit site
There were two separate dynasties they had to contend with.

When wasn't there dynasties to contend with in the O6?

'47 to '51 - Toronto

'50 to '55 - Detroit

'56 to '60 - Habs

'62 to '67 - Toronto

'65 to '71 - Habs

The Hawks were the clear 2nd best team from '62 to '71, they should have won more Cups in a league that usually only had 2 or 3 real contenders in any season.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
10,420
5,970
The Hawks were the clear 2nd best team from '62 to '71, they should have won more Cups in a league that usually only had 2 or 3 real contenders in any season.
It will be quite semantic-pedantic or a circular argument (or maybe the 3), but where they considering who won the cups ?

From 62-67, were they clearly better than either MTL or the TOR ?

They had a better record and goal differential, but 10 more wins in 420 games did not made it that clear.

Brom 68 to 71, BOS-MTL-NYR can all be argued for.

They were the clear second best team overall over the 10 years during the regular season, but not during any stretch ? Would that be fair.

MTL was always arguable to be has good and after that the Leafs than the Bruins were.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,439
9,684
NYC
www.youtube.com
I don't want to derail the thread too much...but the whole "dynasties got in the way" thing...it's not like it's road construction, ya know?

It's not a "you can't go this way...because the road is gone."

Didn't Chicago (and New York and Boston) have the opportunity to build a dynasty just as much as anyone else? Didn't the Rangers have a bead on Gordie Howe and went, "no thanks"...just to use an extreme example.

The Isles built a dynasty from scratch, it's not like they showed up with their core and asked to play in the NHL.

I'm not sure what point I'm making...other than to say: that could have been them too...but they chose to...not be...good. haha sorry, I'll just go back to whatever I was doing...
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
10,420
5,970
I don't want to derail the thread too much...but the whole "dynasties got in the way" thing...it's not like it's road construction, ya know?
Yes it is a bit strange, they were dynastic because the Hawks did not beat them, which is the very question being asked, it does not give much light, specially that the op say:
I don't think you can use the "they were up against dynasties" as dynasties were the norm, not the exception, in the O6 from 1947 to 1971.

Which is fair, about everyone that won the cup in that era did it against a would be if not for them or actual dynasties having a road bump that year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,161
8,584
Regina, Saskatchewan
There's a lot of examples of HHOFers getting missed by other teams. The Rangers missed on Howe. The Leafs missed on Red Kelly.

Pierre Pilote was a late bloomer and ended up on the Blackhawks as a stroke of luck.

It's not like the Sponsorship program structurally prevented good players going to the States. But poor management and poor scouting and poor player relations did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,648
5,673
Parts Unknown
When wasn't there dynasties to contend with in the O6?

'47 to '51 - Toronto

'50 to '55 - Detroit

'56 to '60 - Habs

'62 to '67 - Toronto

'65 to '71 - Habs

The Hawks were the clear 2nd best team from '62 to '71, they should have won more Cups in a league that usually only had 2 or 3 real contenders in any season.
Were they?

Toronto had a better overall lineup, even if they didn't have anyone like Hull/Mikita.
 

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,437
673
Sunshine Coast, Australia
There were two separate dynasties they had to contend with.

My Dad had an old definitely out-of-print-now book about Orr from about 1971 and the bit of context we dont see now is that Bruins fans at the time seemed much more concerned about Chicago than the Canadiens at the time. When the Bruins curbstomped the Hawks in 1970 with a sweep of the higher seeded Hawks, I think it must have really damaged the Hawks image inside and outside of their dressing room.

There's a lot of examples of HHOFers getting missed by other teams. The Rangers missed on Howe. The Leafs missed on Red Kelly.

Pierre Pilote was a late bloomer and ended up on the Blackhawks as a stroke of luck.

It's not like the Sponsorship program structurally prevented good players going to the States. But poor management and poor scouting and poor player relations did.

Its true, but you wonder if the distance factor when managing canadian based junior clubs also made running them the right way difficult? When I read accounts of that era it seems really rare to hear of a Rangers or Blackhawks affiliate west of the Soo.

Were they?

Toronto had a better overall lineup, even if they didn't have anyone like Hull/Mikita.
Then, and now, 1967 Chicago was seen as the better team. Horton-Stanley were getting torched on a regular basis, Bower was fragile as glass, and Punch was insistent about keeping the freshest young legs they had stapled to the bench while running the same broken strategies over and over.

Hawks should have won they just choked.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,929
29,714
This topic comes up a lot. Obviously there are reasons people believe they should've performed better, won more Cups. I suppose the biggest reason is they had the two highest scorers, and the most decorated defenseman of the decade.

But the truth is they were never a great team, they were lucky to win even one Cup. They didn't really underachieve in the playoffs; they just didn't have very good teams.

Mikita is probably the most overrated star forward in NHL history. He just wasn't as good as most people think he was. He was never as good as his numbers, he was weak defensively during his best years, and he took a lot of unbelievably dumb penalties over many years.

Hull was a bit overrated, but much less than Mikita. Hull had great skills - some of them easily the best of that era. But there were also elements of emptiness to his game, e.g. compared to Howe. But Hull was a good player.

Pilote was talented in that era but he wasn't an all-time great in any sense. He wasn't any better than Gary Suter.

The Leafs and Habs were generally very strong and quite deep, and the Wings had some veteran savvy during the 1960s.
Man I'm one of the bigger Pilote truthers around here but "wasn't any better than Gary Suter" is a hell of a take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
30,472
19,112
Didn't Chicago (and New York and Boston) have the opportunity to build a dynasty just as much as anyone else? Didn't the Rangers have a bead on Gordie Howe and went, "no thanks"...just to use an extreme example.

The Isles built a dynasty from scratch, it's not like they showed up with their core and asked to play in the NHL.
I think the Draft System in pro sports is far more important for multi-generational parity than any free agency, salary cap or really anything. I doubt the Islanders ever become a dynasty (or at least as soon as they did?) if they were asked to develop their own Academies or Sponsorship programs from scratch. But you get your turn to select the best Amateurs on a rotating basis like everyone else, and you get to start by picking 1st, 1st, 4th.. and then just kinda go from there? Basically anyone can be a Dynasty.

Obviously it was theoretically or legally possible before and it's not like they weren't.. not good, lol, it's just that scouting in 1947 wasn't as simple as it is today and relied a lot more on local connections and the like, Montreal had all the French Canadian players (more or less). Not because they had the legal right over them or exclusive territorial control or anything like that, but because they just.. did and that's how it worked, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad