What defines a "dynasty"?

[gotyournose]

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.

I agree with you Big Phil, unless you win back to back, it’s not a dynasty. It’s just not. What if Chicago had won in 2017? Still no for me because you have to win back to back. What’s more impressive Chicago 3 cups in 6 years or back to back cups that Detroit and Pittsburgh managed to do?

 

[Big Phil]

I agree with you Big Phil, unless you win back to back, it’s not a dynasty. It’s just not. What if Chicago had won in 2017? Still no for me because you have to win back to back. What’s more impressive Chicago 3 cups in 6 years or back to back cups that Detroit and Pittsburgh managed to do?

Hmmm, tough one. Because in that case the Red Wings actually had 3 in 6 Cups during that time too. It is a fair question to ask because it has been asked before who was better the Hawks from 2009-'15 or the Wings from 1996-'02? I usually say the Wings here because they were also normally great in the regular season and only have that one blip in 2001 where they lost to someone they shouldn't have.

But what is better, 3 Cups in 6 years or just two in a row? None are dynasties, but I get the feeling you are remembered more when you do it back to back. I remember Glen Sather saying that the first Cup the Oilers won was almost like a relief. But he felt that defending the Cup is harder than winning it in the first place, and that is true because hardly anyone does it.

 

[VanIslander]

In the last 50 years there have been dynasties in Edmonton, on Long Island and in Montreal. Period. Before that Toronto and Detroit and Ottawa. Period.

That's simply the total list of dynasties often talked about in history books.

Anything else is revisionist history.

Use analysis and inductive logic to elicit a definition of "dynasty" based on historical facts.

The Internet has really f'd with our thoughts on what words mean. In part, the language is changing quickly because communication has increased so much.

"I was shook" instead of "I was shocked" or "I was skaken up".

"He is sketch" instead of "He is sketchy"; "He is sketched" instead of "He is sketched out."

There are TONS of new expressions I had never heard back home but nowadays is in the media, on social media and spoken by newbie teachers.

Language is changing at lightning speed due to the 'net.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

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.

Yeah, no...this is like saying "I cant believe I could've dated Taylor Swift, we were in the same city at the same time..."

 

[Bryce Newman]

Yeah, no...this is like saying "I cant believe I could've dated Taylor Swift, we were in the same city at the same time..."

You're right. Rangers had no chance those years. Just like the Bruins had no chance in 2013 and 2019.

The Blackhawks and Blues were FAR superior teams.

 

[hacksaw7]

Not sure if anyone else thinks like this but in my head I acknowledge sub dynasties. Divisional Dominance that stretched into the Finals.

For example the Dallas Stars dominating 1996-2006. They finished first in their division 7 times, won a Cup, lost another final. So to me that team, that stretch they have should be remembered in some way

 

[GMR]

Hmmm, tough one. Because in that case the Red Wings actually had 3 in 6 Cups during that time too. It is a fair question to ask because it has been asked before who was better the Hawks from 2009-'15 or the Wings from 1996-'02? I usually say the Wings here because they were also normally great in the regular season and only have that one blip in 2001 where they lost to someone they shouldn't have.

But what is better, 3 Cups in 6 years or just two in a row? None are dynasties, but I get the feeling you are remembered more when you do it back to back. I remember Glen Sather saying that the first Cup the Oilers won was almost like a relief. But he felt that defending the Cup is harder than winning it in the first place, and that is true because hardly anyone does it.

Detroit were Cup contenders each season from 1994-2009. They only won 4 Cups, but that was more than any other team. They were constantly at or near the top of the standings. That may not fit the definition some give to a dynasty, but I sure as hell enjoyed the run. Chicago didn't have that kind of run.

After 2009, they still made the playoffs for seven seasons, but were clearly not a contender anymore.

 

[MadLuke]

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.

True, but let say if Tampa does it, it would not feel dynastie issh, but if by 2045 they are the only team to have achieved it and done 3 in a row after the Islanders in 1983, maybe they will be retroactively by the future people get to be one.

 

[Big Phil]

Not sure if anyone else thinks like this but in my head I acknowledge sub dynasties. Divisional Dominance that stretched into the Finals.

For example the Dallas Stars dominating 1996-2006. They finished first in their division 7 times, won a Cup, lost another final. So to me that team, that stretch they have should be remembered in some way

Absolutely, there are always memorable teams that weren't considered dynasties. There are teams such as the Wings, Avalanche, Devils and Stars that had some nice long runs and had some championships in there, or other deep runs. The Flames from the late 1980s/early 1990s are memorable for example. Even the Messier-led Rangers in the 1990s.

 

[hacksaw7]

Detroit were Cup contenders each season from 1994-2009. They only won 4 Cups, but that was more than any other team. They were constantly at or near the top of the standings. That may not fit the definition some give to a dynasty, but I sure as hell enjoyed the run. Chicago didn't have that kind of run.

After 2009, they still made the playoffs for seven seasons, but were clearly not a contender anymore.

Eh...They were a 100+ plus point team up until 2012 (which is right around where it all ended for us with the Finals run and loss to LA)

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Eh...They were a 100+ plus point team up until 2012 (which is right around where it all ended for us with the Finals run and loss to LA)

As late as 2015 they were still being talked about as cup contenders I remember an nbc game in early March of that year between them and the Rangers and it was being touted as a possible Eastern Conference Final preview. I also remember in 2012 they led the league in pts for a short time.

 

[GMR]

Eh...They were a 100+ plus point team up until 2012 (which is right around where it all ended for us with the Finals run and loss to LA)

They weren't legit contenders in 2012. Regular season record was a little flattering. The playoffs showed that as well. 100 points in today's NHL isn't as impressive with the OT and shootout format.

 

[HF007]

Minimum I’d say is 3 in 5 plus some other good showings like CF/SCF or great regular season records.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

1 thing I'll say about Detroit is this is pick 1 to 2 of the 3 following years 1999,2003,and 2007. Those were the years where I do feel had they gotten out of the series they were in they would have won. Now 1999 we all know had they won it would have been 3 in a row and well we wouldn't be having this discussion. But in 03 and 07 had they somehow beaten Amahiem in those series I definitely feel they go on to win obviously 07 is more of a given than 03, but if those cups happen that's 6 in 12 years and 3 repeats would you consider that a dynasty?

 

[Big Phil]

1 thing I'll say about Detroit is this is pick 1 to 2 of the 3 following years 1999,2003,and 2007. Those were the years where I do feel had they gotten out of the series they were in they would have won. Now 1999 we all know had they won it would have been 3 in a row and well we wouldn't be having this discussion. But in 03 and 07 had they somehow beaten Amahiem in those series I definitely feel they go on to win obviously 07 is more of a given than 03, but if those cups happen that's 6 in 12 years and 3 repeats would you consider that a dynasty?

I have a bit of an issue with it if they are much different teams. The Wings that won in 1997 were much different than the Wings that won in 2008. Different captain, different coach, Osgood was the back up in 1997 and there in 2008 but he had also been on two different teams in between. Yzerman was gone, Fedorov/Shanahan were gone and the team was more or less Datsyuk/Zetterberg-run by then. Lidstrom is the only constant on those teams or if you want to count someone like Kris Draper.

It is like combining the 1960 Habs with the 1970s Habs. They are just different. In fact, I actually tend to separate the 1971 and 1973 teams from either one of the surrounding dynasties. They were all different cores and there were different coaches and different goalies.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Even the Messier-led Rangers in the 1990s.

We had a nice little stretch there. 2 Presidents Trophies and the Cup in 3 years with a Hart and Norris winner from 92-94. Not bad. The weird part was 93 when they finished last because of injuries and inner turmoil. So the Rangers went from 1st overall, to last, and then back to 1st overall again in 94 lol. Leetch missed most of 93 with the ankle injury slipping on ice outside his apartment. Shows you how important he was to the team.

 

[Big Phil]

We had a nice little stretch there. 2 Presidents Trophies and the Cup in 3 years with a Hart and Norris winner from 92-94. Not bad. The weird part was 93 when they finished last because of injuries and inner turmoil. So the Rangers went from 1st overall, to last, and then back to 1st overall again in 94 lol. Leetch missed most of 93 with the ankle injury slipping on ice outside his apartment. Shows you how important he was to the team.

I always point to Leetch in those years. It is no accident that with him missing most of the season the Rangers faltered. Somehow that guy has gotten underrated and yet when he was playing I don't think he was underrated at all. His Hart voting record does not line up with how valuable he actually was.

 

[The Panther]

Why are we talking Dynasty Participation Ribbons? No such.

Either you won 3 Cups in a row, 4 in 5, 4 in 6 (plus RS dominance), 4 in a row, 5 in a row... or, you weren't a Dynasty. End of.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I always point to Leetch in those years. It is no accident that with him missing most of the season the Rangers faltered. Somehow that guy has gotten underrated and yet when he was playing I don't think he was underrated at all. His Hart voting record does not line up with how valuable he actually was.

I always remember him being regarded as the premiere defenseman of the league when he was playing but now somehow history seems to have been rewritten lol. Haven't seen a player like him since and miss watching him every night. He could literally just take over games by himself.

I think because he was an American player playing for a big market American team that spent money. That will always earn you a lot of unjust criticism unfortunately. Sad because Leetch was such a humble guy too despite accomplishing pretty much everything in the sport.

Why are we talking Dynasty Participation Ribbons? No such.

Either you won 3 Cups in a row, 4 in 5, 4 in 6 (plus RS dominance), 4 in a row, 5 in a row... or, you weren't a Dynasty. End of.

I agree. I was just thinking that perhaps there should be a term for teams that, for example, win 3 cups within a decade, or something like that. Or even teams that win 1 cup but have several seasons of dominance in the regular season to go along with that 1 cup.

 

[Big Phil]

I always remember him being regarded as the premiere defenseman of the league when he was playing but now somehow history seems to have been rewritten lol. Haven't seen a player like him since and miss watching him every night. He could literally just take over games by himself.

I think because he was an American player playing for a big market American team that spent money. That will always earn you a lot of unjust criticism unfortunately. Sad because Leetch was such a humble guy too despite accomplishing pretty much everything in the sport.

I think Leetch got his due back in the day for sure. For whatever reason he sort of gets underrated these days. I once saw a Niedermayer vs. Leetch poll on here and it really ought to be a landslide of a poll and yet it wasn't. Yeah, there is no way I pick Niedermayer for my team if Leetch is still on the table. I have said this before, but in international hockey tournaments when we played the U.S. I honestly don't think there was anyone that made me more nervous than Leetch. There was Richter and Hull and such and they could steal things from you but Leetch was just so good at controlling the play from the back end. Even from an offensive standpoint I think he was more frightening than any of the forwards.

 

[The Panther]

I think Leetch got his due back in the day for sure. For whatever reason he sort of gets underrated these days.

I think this is because (like Richter) the back-half of his career was much less impressive than the first, though much of that is just that he played on bad teams.

 

[Big Phil]

I think this is because (like Richter) the back-half of his career was much less impressive than the first, though much of that is just that he played on bad teams.

Yeah I guess there is that. He's actually over a PPG in the playoffs which is unheard of as a defenseman. Could have played in more playoff games than just 95, but still has that insane Conn Smythe year. He was just always a guy that made me nervous if we were playing against him. Just so deadly of a guy to jump in the rush or even lead the rush.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah I guess there is that. He's actually over a PPG in the playoffs which is unheard of as a defenseman. Could have played in more playoff games than just 95, but still has that insane Conn Smythe year. He was just always a guy that made me nervous if we were playing against him. Just so deadly of a guy to jump in the rush or even lead the rush.

He was an awesome talent, for sure. To this day, Leetch is one of the greatest "in tight" skaters I've seen. He seemed to be able to skate in a phone-booth, as it were, in full control of the puck, able to shift his body left, right, forward, backward, all with ease. I've rarely seen players so 'nimble'.

I think there's also a tendency of today's fans to judge players of the past by today's standards, which is usually a mistake. For the same reason people think Coffey was poor defensively, Leetch gets painted that way. But it has to be understood that when Leetch entered the League in 1988 and immediately became his club's go-to PP and offensive defenceman, he was thereafter expected to lead the attack and carry a lot of the load offensively. His coach(es) wanted him to rush the puck and take some gambles offensively. But this is sort-of incomprehensible to some younger fans.

Naturally, then, when the Rangers had more of a stacked line-up and stronger roster from around 1991 to 1997, Leetch looked best because he didn't have to carry that load so much (though he still did more than enough, winning a Conn Smythe!). I've seen Ray Bourque accused of being defensively weak(er) as well, by fans who don't understand that the game was different then. Go back and look at Boston's Conference Champion 1988 squad (which didn't even have Craig Janney for most of the season) -- if Bourque didn't lead the attack, who would? Oh, and he also had to be the top-defensive guy and shut down all the other teams' best players at the same time that he was expected to lead the team in scoring.

Some of Leetch's coaches, after 1997 or so, are probably guilty of encouraging his offensive game more than they should have, or maybe Leetch had some difficulty adapting to a weaker roster and the DPE. But he was very capable. I recall one shift in the 1996 World Cup where Leetch went into the boards against Lindros, hit him cleanly and hard, and easily stripped him of the puck. It was good, tough, 'Defense 101'. He could do that.

 

[MadLuke]

I think this is because (like Richter) the back-half of his career was much less impressive than the first, though much of that is just that he played on bad teams.

This how long was is prime get vastly underrated because of having an elite phase that started at 20 instead of 23.

He was absolute elite between 20 to 28 with a really good prime until 35 (he still scored 79 pts in the deep of the dpe).

The same career but 23 to 31 full elite and good prime until 38 retire at 40 instead of 37 would be judged differently I feel.

Leetch played 28:29 a game during the playoff (13 games) with the Maple Leafs, and I feel he is judged has if he didn't age well.

 

[Big Phil]

He was an awesome talent, for sure. To this day, Leetch is one of the greatest "in tight" skaters I've seen. He seemed to be able to skate in a phone-booth, as it were, in full control of the puck, able to shift his body left, right, forward, backward, all with ease. I've rarely seen players so 'nimble'.

I think there's also a tendency of today's fans to judge players of the past by today's standards, which is usually a mistake. For the same reason people think Coffey was poor defensively, Leetch gets painted that way. But it has to be understood that when Leetch entered the League in 1988 and immediately became his club's go-to PP and offensive defenceman, he was thereafter expected to lead the attack and carry a lot of the load offensively. His coach(es) wanted him to rush the puck and take some gambles offensively. But this is sort-of incomprehensible to some younger fans.

Naturally, then, when the Rangers had more of a stacked line-up and stronger roster from around 1991 to 1997, Leetch looked best because he didn't have to carry that load so much (though he still did more than enough, winning a Conn Smythe!). I've seen Ray Bourque accused of being defensively weak(er) as well, by fans who don't understand that the game was different then. Go back and look at Boston's Conference Champion 1988 squad (which didn't even have Craig Janney for most of the season) -- if Bourque didn't lead the attack, who would? Oh, and he also had to be the top-defensive guy and shut down all the other teams' best players at the same time that he was expected to lead the team in scoring.

Some of Leetch's coaches, after 1997 or so, are probably guilty of encouraging his offensive game more than they should have, or maybe Leetch had some difficulty adapting to a weaker roster and the DPE. But he was very capable. I recall one shift in the 1996 World Cup where Leetch went into the boards against Lindros, hit him cleanly and hard, and easily stripped him of the puck. It was good, tough, 'Defense 101'. He could do that.

I'll never forget Harry Neale commenting on Leetch during the 1996 World Cup. This was right after Canada had scored in Game 3 of the final to go up 2-1. When there was a break in the action Neale said: "I would put a man right out there on Leetch for the rest of the game. He is the one player who can show up on the rush and the winger should be so close to him that he could tell you what Leetch had for lunch."

As it was, Leetch took the shot that Hull deflected in for the tying goal.

Funny how Neale mentioned Leetch. He didn't say that you'd better watch Hull. Or Modano. Or Lafontaine. Or Amonte. Or Leclair. It was Leetch of all players...............and a defenseman.