Using the fact that their cups were won during Covid against Tampa falls flat as an argument against them, in my opinion.
Why?
Does that mean any team that played fewer than 82 games is lesser?
The Edmonton Oilers of the 1980s did not play 82 games. They played fewer playoff games than those Tampa teams as well. Are they a lesser team than the teams listed? How about the 1970s Montreal Canadiens?
Will next season's cup winner automatically be the best cup winner of all time because they had to play 84 games in the regular season?
The answer is obviously 'of course not,' because the number of games played during a regular season or the playoffs is not, in and of itself, significant; all that matters is a team's relative performance against other teams playing the same number of games.
If Tampa had somehow played fewer regular-season games or playoff games than any other team in the league, you could comfortably argue their cups are less valid. But they didn't.
For the same reason I can have a team that played a 48 game regular season at the top of the list. Because the number of games played in a regular season is not particularly important so long as every team is playing the same number of games under the same conditions.
The quality of a team is not measured by the number of games they play, but how they perform against competition that has played the same number of games under the same circumstances.
Not really, no.
'This team played X games in Y years' measures are only impressive in relation to the teams around them and the games every team in the league played.
For example, by the logic you have presented (more games = more impressive), the 2024 and 2025 Florida Panthers are a more impressive team than the 1997 and 1998 Red Wings since those Red Wings played a paltry 203 games in two years. Lazy bastards, winning their cups in fewer games played...
I'm clearly being a bit facetious with that example, but the idea that games played is somehow impressive in of itself, devoid of context, is absurd. So let's take a look at each team relative to their peers.
Over the years of 2020 and 2021, teams played an average of 126 regular season games and an average of 21 playoff games.
So, with 174 games played over those two seasons, Tampa played 27 games more than the average of their peers.
Over the years of 2024 and 2025, teams played an average of 164 regular season games and an average of 22 playoff games.
So, with 211 games played over those two seasons, Florida played 25 games more than the average of their peers.
This kind of evaluation depends entirely on the critera.
Are we going by talent or performance?
If we're going by talent, what measures are we using?
If we're going by performance, are we going by regular season, playoffs, some weighted aggregate of both?
Every team had the same 2+ month gap.
This is as weak an argument as those that claim the 2013 Blackhawks benefited from not having to play a full 82 game playoffs.
Every team played according the same rules and circumstances. Nobody prevented any other team from dominating as the Blackhawks did over 48 games, just as nobody prevented any other team from slingshotting out of the 2 month break like the Lightning did.
I'm pretty sure he meant, if Tampa's path to the cup was so easy in 2020 and 2021, why didn't Florida win those cups?
After all, Florida was in the league in 2020 and 2021. They played the same number of games as Tampa. In the same division. They were in the playoffs in both years as well. In 2020 they were eliminated by NYI in the play-in, in 2021 they were stomped in the first round by... Tampa.
Nothing was stopping Florida from winning these apparently super-easy-to-win Stanley Cups... except, you know, better teams that played better.
