What defines a "dynasty"?

[Bryce Newman]

Some would argue that a true "dynasty" means winning uninterrupted. Islander fans often argue their dynasty was better than the Oilers even though that core group won less cups than the Oilers. The reason being their 4 cups came consecutively while Edmonton won 5 cups in 7 years.

Got me thinking about teams like the Wings and how they won 3 cups from 97 to 02, or the Devils winning 3 cups from 95 to 03. If the Oilers winning 5 in 7 is a dynasty, is winning 3 in 5 a mini-dynasty? Or the devils winning 3 in 8 years, what is that? The cups are too far spaced out to be called a dynasty, I think, but at the same time they won those cups with the same core players (Stevens, Brodeur) so it has to be regarded as something more than just "individual cup wins" I think.

I think if a team wins a bunch of cups with only 1 season here and there of not winning, the term "dynasty" should still be applied. But for teams that win, lets say, 3 in 6 years, or 4 in 8, there should be a new term for that so long as those teams retain their core group. What do you think it should be called?

 

[Big Phil]

I think it can sometimes vary from sport to sport but if we stick with hockey I think the minimum is at least 3 Cups in 4 years with the "off" year still being good. For example, the Oilers with 4 Cups in 5 years (the Gretzky teams) is for sure a dynasty. Back to back twice and the one blip that awful Game 7 in 1986. Yeah, they were the envy of the league, even when they blew it in 1986. The Isles winning 4 in a row and winning 19 series in a row probably never happens again in our lifetime.

But 3 in 4 is a dynasty for sure. So is three in a row. So is 4 in 6 (Red Wings of the 1950s). Two in a row is tricky. Philly in the 1970s and the Pens in the 1990s are definitely memorable teams, and there was definitely success surrounding it but I wouldn't call them a dynasty. Nor would I Detroit (two in a row in the 1990s, 3 in 6 in total) or the Pens of the last 5 years (two in a row). Right now Tampa Bay will peak my interest if they win in 2021. That'll be two in a row. But still not quite a dynasty.

In other sports it is sort of the same. The Cowboys were a dynasty in the 1990s. The 49ers? Yeah, everyone thinks of them as one. Or at least as the team of the 1980s. Definitely Steelers of the 1970s. Packers of the 1960s. I'd say the Patriots of the early 2000s as well, and to be honest I'd pretty much say the Patriots of the recent three Super Bowls too, even if it is just 3 in 5. That included a Super Bowl loss, and a loss in the AFC championship. So they were always good in that mix. Some people might call the entire Brady/Belichick era a dynasty. That's how it can be in the NFL sometimes.

Yeah you need three in a row, at least. I think of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers as a dynasty because they hit three in a row and 4 final appearances in 5 years. Or the Warriors with 3 in 4 and 5 final appearances in a row with the 73-win record setting season sandwiched as one of the losses. But I don't think of the Isiah Thomas Pistons as as dynasty.

Or in Baseball, the Blue Jays as much as I love them in the 1990s were not quite a dynasty. The A's in the 1970s? Sure. The Big Red Machine? You'd like to say yes, but again just two in a row. The Yankees of the late 1990s/early 2000s are the last dynasty in Baseball. And only hockey in my opinion has the longer drought.

The Hawks of 2010-'15 were basically an overtime loss away from it, I think, in 2014. But still no.

You can still be a memorable team and not be a dynasty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For me, it's at least 3 Cups combined with winning more Cups than the rest of the teams put together over the time period.

So 3 wins in 5 years would be a dynasty; 3 wins in 6 years would not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm old school. 3 straight, no exceptions.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I'm old school. 3 straight, no exceptions.

So the 80s Oilers don't qualify?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The 9 official NHL dynasties and when they won the Stanley Cup:

Ottawa: 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
Toronto: 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
Detroit: 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
Montreal: 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
Toronto: 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
Montreal: 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
Montreal: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
NYI: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
Edmonton: 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Legends of Hockey - Time Capsule - Dynasties - The Teams - Menu Page

Only 5 of 9 official dynasties managed to win 3 in a row.

All of these teams won 4-5 Cups, though IMO, including 1927 Ottawa and 1967 Toronto as part of those respective dynasties is stretching the definition.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So the 80s Oilers don't qualify?

Nope. Buncha losers.

 

[MadLuke]

I'm old school. 3 straight, no exceptions.

You really exclude Gretzky Oilers and the last 60s habs in your mental list of Dynastie ?

I could get someone going for a 4 in a row or burst mentality, but 3 in a row being better than say 4 in 5 year's must be a rare view.

 

[BenchBrawl]

3 in a row +
3 in 4
4 in 6

then add in the satellite cups orbiting the above, as long as the core remains stable (e.g. 1990 Edmonton, 1927 Ottawa, 1967 Toronto)


---

3 in 5 is borderline, but a reasonable cut-off for the modern era

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

3 in a row +
3 in 4
4 in 5

then add in the satellite cups orbiting the above, as long as the core remains stable (e.g. 1990 Edmonton, 1927 Ottawa, 1967 Toronto)


---

3 in 5 is borderline, but a reasonable cut-off for the modern era

I'm sure this is the traditional view, but for some reason it bothers me that the 1967 Toronto Cup that splits the 60s Montreal dynasty is included in the Toronto dynasty. Just doesn't feel right to have 2 dynasties at the same time!

 

[Bryce Newman]

I still say my Rangers 4 cups in 66 years is a dynasty, but most seem to disagree.

 

[GMR]

Nope. Buncha losers.

Don't shoot the puck into your own net if you want to be called a dynasty.

 

[Big Phil]

Don't shoot the puck into your own net if you want to be called a dynasty.

Even in 1986 the Oilers arguably had their best regular season. Led the NHL in points by a wide margin, Gretzky had his best year, Coffey had his best year as well. So to have that season sandwiched in between two back to backs is still very much a dynasty.

The 9 official NHL dynasties and when they won the Stanley Cup:

Ottawa: 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
Toronto: 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
Detroit: 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
Montreal: 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
Toronto: 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
Montreal: 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
Montreal: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
NYI: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
Edmonton: 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Legends of Hockey - Time Capsule - Dynasties - The Teams - Menu Page

Only 5 of 9 official dynasties managed to win 3 in a row.

All of these teams won 4-5 Cups, though IMO, including 1927 Ottawa and 1967 Toronto as part of those respective dynasties is stretching the definition.

The Leafs are still 4 in 6 in the 1960s. I know the 1967 Cup is sort of left off by itself but I think it still counts. It was definitely the last whack at things.

The biggest knock I have with the 1960s Leafs is that they only led the NHL in points once and that was 1963. Historically speaking they have never been a lights out regular season team, even in their Cup winning years. So there's that. The rest of the dynasties, with the exception of the 1940s Leafs were either 1st place often, or when they weren't they were right in the mix.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

3 in 5 at the bare minimum and you need at least 1 repeat title IMO.

edit: Also, no other team should match your success in the same time frame which excludes the 10's Blackhawks for me

 

[The Panther]

For me, 3 in 5 doesn't quite do it.

4 in 6 is borderline. I agree with the NHL that the 50s' Red Wings qualify because in addition to the 4 in 6, they completely dominated the NHL in regular season as well (7 straight first-place seasons!).

3 in 3, of course.

3 in 4, yes.

4 in 5, yes.

5 in 7, yes.

The reason people are starting to talk about 'stretching' the definitions now is simply because it's really hard / impossible to win multiple Cups in a short period in the salary cap / 30+ team era. So, yeah, maybe we need a new word for lesser dynasties...

How about... FIEFDOM?

 

[scott clam]

In Basketball the Spurs are considered a dynasty with 3 in 5(2003,05,07).

 

[MadLuke]

I think if the drought for 3 cups in a row continue for a long time, 1983 Islanders is starting to been for a while and the 3 in 4 or 4 in 5(not since the Oilers I think) we could one days see the 3 in 5 be retroactively considered dynasties, 3 in 5 is something no team achieved to do in a very long time and would make certain that no team won more in that windows and there would not be concurrent dynastie going on at the same time like the Wings and Hawks 3 in 6 situation.

Specially if there is a cup final in that missing year's

 

[Bryce Newman]

I think if the drought for 3 cups in a row continue for a long time, 1983 Islanders is starting to been for a while and the 3 in 4 or 4 in 5(not since the Oilers I think) we could one days see the 3 in 5 be retroactively considered dynasties, 3 in 5 is something no team achieved to do in a very long time and would make certain that no team won more in that windows and there would not be concurrent dynastie going on at the same time like the Wings and Hawks 3 in 6 situation.

Specially if there is a cup final in that missing year's

Crazy to think the Rangers could have had 3 cups in 4 years with a few more breaks from 2012-2015. In 2012 they came within 2 games of the final. In 2014 they went to the final, and in 2015 they came within 1 game of the final. Depresses me to think about it, considering they didn't even get ONE cup out of all those great runs.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I have no strong opinion on this: on the one hand I think that the Oilers were the last dynasty, but on the other hand I think there’s something to be said for the Blackhawks arguably becoming “the team to beat” for six seasons, winning three cups. They certainly received a lot of well earned praise for their ability to build such a competitive team in the cap era, bleeding quality players throughout the span. I don’t hate the notion of them being a “modern dynasty”.

I’m not necessarily saying that what they were able to do was more difficult than molding a dynasty in the 80s though, it’s not as simple an argument as saying that they would have won more cups without the cap forcing them to progressively strip their supporting cast down, as the cap was as much a restriction on other teams as it was on them. But I think their success will be difficult to match in this era.

Tampa is probably the most capable, but there are so many factors at play that might derail any given playoff season. I think it’s more likely we’ll see something like a foursome of powerhouses trading cups most of the time, as between 95-03, or 09-17.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Funny thing is I always thought Detroit was one. They won all 3 with the same core captain and coach. The Devils on the other hand outside of Stevens, Brodeur, and Niedermayer had 3 different coaches and vastly different rosters for each.

Crazy to think the Rangers could have had 3 cups in 4 years with a few more breaks from 2012-2015. In 2012 they came within 2 games of the final. In 2014 they went to the final, and in 2015 they came within 1 game of the final. Depresses me to think about it, considering they didn't even get ONE cup out of all those great runs.

True but I really think 12 and 15 would have been those years but the team would have been vastly different for each. A prime example in another sport is the Boston Red Sox. Thier 04 and 07 teams were vastly different.

 

[plusandminus]

The 9 official NHL dynasties and when they won the Stanley Cup:

Ottawa: 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927
Toronto: 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951
Detroit: 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955
Montreal: 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960
Toronto: 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967
Montreal: 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969
Montreal: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
NYI: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
Edmonton: 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

Legends of Hockey - Time Capsule - Dynasties - The Teams - Menu Page

Only 5 of 9 official dynasties managed to win 3 in a row.

All of these teams won 4-5 Cups, though IMO, including 1927 Ottawa and 1967 Toronto as part of those respective dynasties is stretching the definition.

I agree with you.

But with the way it is today, with so many teams, salary cap, draft system, etc, it is much harder to accomplish what the above teams did.
I also think randomness plays a part, making teams having to be clearly above the other teams to have a significantly higher chance than them to win the Stanley Cup.


To me, Detroit was a "dynasty" during the Lidström era. Over time, they were the by far best team.
They "only" won two straight cups, but the season before they won 62(!) regular season games. And the season before that, they won 33 out of 48 games.
Regular season standings finishes, and playoffs, from 1994-95 onwards:
1 (70 to 65), then 4-1, 0-4.
1 (131(!) to 103), then 4-2, 4-3, 2-4.
5 (94 to 107), then 4-2, 4-0, 4-2, 4-0. 16-4 to win Stanley Cup!
3 (103 to 109), then 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 4-0. 16-6 to win Stanley Cup!
7 (93 to 114), then 4-0, 2-4.
2 (108 to 114), then 4-0, 1-4. Lost to COL again...
2 (111 to 118), then 2-4. (Okay, 3rd straight less good season)
1 (116 to 101), then 4-2, 4-1, 4-3, 4-1. 16-7 to win Stanley Cup!
3 (110 to 113), then 0-4.
1 (109 to 106), then 4-2, 2-4.
1 (124 to 113), then 2-4.
2 (113 to 113), then 4-2, 4-2, 2-4.
1 (115 to 108), then 4-2, 4-0, 4-2, 4-2. 16-6 to win Stanley Cup!
3 (112 to 117), then 4-0, 4-3, 4-1, 3-4

If not a dynasty, then what word would be suitable?

6 President's Trophy (PT) and 4 Stanley Cups (SC) in 14 seasons.
Four consecutive seasons of either PT or SC.

Aggregated standings from 1994-95 to 2008-09 (14 seasons)...
1. DET 1509 pts, .679
2. NJD 1384 pts, .619
Then 1340, 1315, 1276, 1235....
Gap between DET and 2nd NJD: 125 pts.
Gap between 2nd NJD and 5th COL: 108 pts.


But anyway, "dynasty" is a word I only encounter when North Americans write or speak, never in Sweden (or do we?). We do however use the word "era" or "epok" (which I believe is "era" and "epoch" in English).

A question to anyone who wants to respond...
Why does it matter if a team/franchise was a dynasty or not? (I'm just curious, no offense meant.)

 

[plusandminus]

I come to think about other sports... And individual athletes...

In tennis, I think many agree that we are at the end of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era of tennis.
Those three are arguably candidates for even being the top-3 best male tennis players ever.
Is the individual equivalent for dynasty a king?
Federer might have been a king for a while (because he came first), but mostly it has been era of three kings sharing the throne..?
List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia
Djokovic has 6 year-end no 1 finishes, while Federer and Nadal has 5.
But Djokovic is the only one who, according to one of the NHL criterias for "dynasty", because he at most only had two no 1 finishes in a row.

Or in football (soccer)... Messi and C. Ronaldo are arguably top-5 or so alltime (along with at least Maradona and Pelé). But none of the two necessarily the undisputed king.
Ballon d'Or
Either Messi and C. Ronaldo won during 11 straight years! Together they had 11 wins and 10 2nd places in 11 years. Messi has 6 first, 6 second, 0 third finishes. C. Ronaldo is 5-6-1. Basically equally impressive.
But C. Ronaldo "only" won two in a row. Thus disqualified as having been a "king"?

I think in similar ways about hockey...
A team/franchise can be great during a period of years, but play in an era where there happens to be another all team great team playing in the same time period.
I team in itself can only do so much.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Obviously this isn't the way the word is used in common parlance, but I there's a certain reverance due for the franchises who had were able to pass a winning transition through multiple related cores without ever blowing it up in any sense.

The most obvious on is the Canadiens, stretching right across Jean Beliveau's career, to the end of Cournoyer's, and arguably connected to two more cups through Gainey/Robinson and then Carbonneau (and two more on the other side through Rocket Richard).

Then there's the Red Wings, where Nick Lidstrom was there the whole time, but the other names shifted around him - Yzerman and Fedorov all the way up to Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

CSKA Moscow didn't build their team in the same environment as the NHL, but the passing of torch between Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov echoes those two teams.

The Ottawa Hockey Club, and later the Senators, maintained greatness through the first quarter century of professional hockey, from Harvey Pulford to King Clancy.

I'm not sure anyone else fits the description. Both the Flyers and Bruins stayed strong through several distinct cores (Orr and Esposito, then Bourque with Middleton then Neely; Clarke and Parent, then Propp and Howe...), but both only have 70s cups to show for it, and both bottomed out in the later and early 90s respectively. The Leafs took a dip in the 50s between strong runs, and the Islanders run of greatness is curiously isolated in a way that befits the team name. Had the Oilers drafted better and torn down less ruthlessly, perhaps they'd have a chance at joining the 4 above. Yeah, you weren't going to keep most of those 80s guys, but imagine what a great young core could ahve looked like in the 90s if they had a chance to learn from Messier before he left?

 

[scott clam]

I think if the drought for 3 cups in a row continue for a long time, 1983 Islanders is starting to been for a while and the 3 in 4 or 4 in 5(not since the Oilers I think) we could one days see the 3 in 5 be retroactively considered dynasties, 3 in 5 is something no team achieved to do in a very long time and would make certain that no team won more in that windows and there would not be concurrent dynastie going on at the same time like the Wings and Hawks 3 in 6 situation.

Specially if there is a cup final in that missing year's

I don't see there being any retroactive 3 in 5 dynasties, because I don't think there are any teams in NHL history that actually did that exactly.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't see there being any retroactive 3 in 5 dynasties, because I don't think there are any teams in NHL history that actually did that exactly.

The closest is the 1970s Bruins. Cup win in 1970, 1972 and Cup finalist in 1974. I think you can still call them a very memorable team though.

The thing that bothers me about Chicago with 3 in 6 years is not the Cup wins, because they were great in them. It is that I don't think you can call anyone an official dynasty if they never repeated. I mean, 3 in 5 years with a back to back in there is at least better. But the Hawks, despite being oh so close in 2014, did not repeat. Also, the two off years in 2011 and 2012 they were bounced out of the playoffs in the 1st round. Once by Vancouver who were President's Trophy winners and eventually Cup finalists (okay, give them a pass on this one) but in 2012 by the Coyotes? Yikes. We are talking about a franchise like the Coyotes who hadn't even gotten out of the 1st round of the playoffs in 25 years at that point. And there were 5 overtime games out of 6 games. The Hawks had all of those great moments in overtime the other years but for some reason didn't have the magic here against what should have been a playoff win. Granted, they sold off some of their players after 2010 but they still should have had more to show for it.

Other dynasties in their off years had more to show for it. Detroit in the 1950s may have lost in the first round in both of their off years but in both of those years they still led the NHL in points.