Worst team to win the Cup?
- Thread starter neutral zone trap13
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
In an absolute sense, probably one of the teams that won during World War 2 when a lot of the best players were off at war.
In a relative sense, the Chicago Blackhawks of 1934 are up there. They were only 20-17-11 in the regular season, finishing last in the league in goals-for. They scored a mere 88 goals in 48 games. Second worst scored 99 goals. They basically rode a hot goaltender (Charlie Gardiner) and the shotblocking of Lionel Conacher to victory.
In a relative sense, the Chicago Blackhawks of 1934 are up there. They were only 20-17-11 in the regular season, finishing last in the league in goals-for. They scored a mere 88 goals in 48 games. Second worst scored 99 goals. They basically rode a hot goaltender (Charlie Gardiner) and the shotblocking of Lionel Conacher to victory.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1938 Chicago Black Hawks
1938 Chicago Black Hawks < .400 regular season 14-25-9.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1938.html
1938 Chicago Black Hawks < .400 regular season 14-25-9.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1938.html
neutral zone trap13
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You guys win. Definitely worse than the 1934 version. I think I got the two teams confused (and apparently had them confused for the whole past ATD).
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2008
- 737
- 7
If one goes by regular season performance of recent Cup winners both the ...
1992-93 Canadiens - 102 points, 6th overall in NHL standings.
2005-06 Hurricanes - 112 points, 3rd overall in NHL standings.
would finish higher than the ...
1994-95 Devils - 52 points, 9th overall in NHL standings, finished only 4 games over .500 (22-18-8).
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Oh I know the 1995 Devils are the lowest overall seed to win the Cup. But I find it hard to call them that when they steamrolled the playoffs and were basically the same roster that finished 2nd in the league the year before.
They started the season in a major slump (playoff hangover + Stevens pissed he wasn't in St. Louis) and didn't have time to recover fully in the lockout shortened season.
I honestly think the 1995 Devils were a significantly better team than the 2003 squad that actually won their division.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,376
- 4,504
I see the '06 Hurricanes get mentioned a lot, but I just don't see why. Maybe it's because they sort of came out of nowhere and disappeared from the radar just as fast, but for that one year, they were that good.
Erik Cole was having a monster year for them before being sidelined in (February?) for all but the final two games of the playoffs, and they just kept on rolling. Brind'Amour was dominant all over the ice from start to finish, with a Hart and Smythe worthy campaign. Cam Ward was great in net after Gerber crapped the bed in round one. Recchi and Weight were key additions mid-season, Eric Staal had a big breakout year. The no-name defense wasn't flashy, but was effective, and they had big seasons from support players like Cullen and Whitney.
It was a case of everything falling into place at the right time, no doubt. But if looked at in a vacuum (and why wouldn't we?), they were as strong a champion as many post-dynasty winners.
Erik Cole was having a monster year for them before being sidelined in (February?) for all but the final two games of the playoffs, and they just kept on rolling. Brind'Amour was dominant all over the ice from start to finish, with a Hart and Smythe worthy campaign. Cam Ward was great in net after Gerber crapped the bed in round one. Recchi and Weight were key additions mid-season, Eric Staal had a big breakout year. The no-name defense wasn't flashy, but was effective, and they had big seasons from support players like Cullen and Whitney.
It was a case of everything falling into place at the right time, no doubt. But if looked at in a vacuum (and why wouldn't we?), they were as strong a champion as many post-dynasty winners.
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
I'm going with the 1986 Canadiens .. Hartford had three more wins than Boston, but Boston had more points than Hartford so they got the third seed in the Adams and played Montreal in the first round instead of the Whalers. Though Montreal took out Hartford in seven games in the second round, I think Hartford would have taken down Montreal in the best-of-5 first round (after all, they manhandled the Adams champion Nords in three straight).
Then there's the whole Roy-played-out-of-his-mind thing, plus upsets of the Flyers and Nords in the first round and Edmonton in the Campbell Finals - I almost wrote Western Conference finals, shame on me!! - and it paved the way for an underdog team that has no business winning the cup to come in and clean house.
Then there's the whole Roy-played-out-of-his-mind thing, plus upsets of the Flyers and Nords in the first round and Edmonton in the Campbell Finals - I almost wrote Western Conference finals, shame on me!! - and it paved the way for an underdog team that has no business winning the cup to come in and clean house.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yes, but 10 of their wins were in OT. And honestly, I'm also looking at the roster "on paper," which admittedly isn't always the best way to do it. They were definitely greater than the sum of their parts, but in NHL2010 terms, they are definitely among the worst
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Worst defense to win the Cup since... I have no idea. I think that's really it. Their forwards were great, but the defensemen were really subpar for a Cup winner.
Then there's the fact that everything fell into place for them. And the fact that they relied on their special teams in the one season that the refs called everything. And what you said about them falling off the face of the earth the next season with the same core.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
I don't remember watching Pittsburgh last year at any point and thinking that they were an elite team. Malkin and Crosby had over 100 points each, but no one else hit 50 (and only two hit 40). Then in the playoffs, they played 24 out of a possible 28 games, which is the third-highest total in history.
I'll probably concoct some metric that will allow for a ranking of all the various Cup winners. Obviously it won't be totally accurate (as metrics never are), but it'll at least provide a common benchmark.
I'll probably concoct some metric that will allow for a ranking of all the various Cup winners. Obviously it won't be totally accurate (as metrics never are), but it'll at least provide a common benchmark.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yeah, Pittsburgh might be the least deep team to win the Cup.
But then you h ad 2 of the 3 top players in the world both playing on the top of their games.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
If the THN article that prompted the discussion is any indication, all it will take is for the players to eventually develop into high-end players, and then the 08-09 Penguins will become the best Cup-winning team in history!
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,156
All time it certainly would be the 1938 Blackhawks hands down. I'm not a huge fan either of the 1945 Maple Leafs who basically had a team of players that were only in the NHL for two years based on WWII but looking back on it they still had HHOFers like Babe Pratt and Ted Kennedy so maybe it's hard to pick them. They were barely above .500 though.
Post expansion I've always narrowed it down to the 1995 Devils, 1986 and 1993 Habs and 2006 Hurricanes. Post lockout it is the Canes without much hesitation. Sure they were 3rd in points in the regular season but that defense was horrible and I've always felt their point totals were inflated by playing in the weakest division in the NHL. Also at the end of the day there are a scarce amount of future HHOFers on that team. BrindAmour shouldn't make it anyways, but even then he was past his prime. Recchi will make it but he was a rent-a-player. That leaves the potential of Ward and Staal. Staal looks to be on the right path, Ward not so sure yet.
The 1986 Habs didn't have a bad roster but rather underwhelming top end talent for a Cup winning team. Ditto for the 1993 Habs. The only players who will ever make the HHOF from the 1993 Habs are already in there. Patrick Roy and Denis Savard who was past his prime by then. Unfortunately in both years there were ample upsets in the playoffs and the Habs didn't have to face the toughest teams a la 2010 Flyers to make a good comparison.
The 1995 Devils were 4 games above .500 for a shortened season. Not great, and I have always felt they won the Cup in the only era in NHL history that they could have. Lemaire forced the Devils to play a brand of hockey that was as fun as watching paint dry and while it was successful the truth is the Devils were better in 2000 and 2003 by a decent margin IMO. There is a reason Lemaire has had rotten success post lockout, that style doesn't fly today. But for a brief time in the dead puck era it did. But I cannot give credit to a team where they would almost certainly not win in they were playing in 90% of NHL history. The Islanders and Habs would win in any era. The 1995 Devils would not
Post expansion I've always narrowed it down to the 1995 Devils, 1986 and 1993 Habs and 2006 Hurricanes. Post lockout it is the Canes without much hesitation. Sure they were 3rd in points in the regular season but that defense was horrible and I've always felt their point totals were inflated by playing in the weakest division in the NHL. Also at the end of the day there are a scarce amount of future HHOFers on that team. BrindAmour shouldn't make it anyways, but even then he was past his prime. Recchi will make it but he was a rent-a-player. That leaves the potential of Ward and Staal. Staal looks to be on the right path, Ward not so sure yet.
The 1986 Habs didn't have a bad roster but rather underwhelming top end talent for a Cup winning team. Ditto for the 1993 Habs. The only players who will ever make the HHOF from the 1993 Habs are already in there. Patrick Roy and Denis Savard who was past his prime by then. Unfortunately in both years there were ample upsets in the playoffs and the Habs didn't have to face the toughest teams a la 2010 Flyers to make a good comparison.
The 1995 Devils were 4 games above .500 for a shortened season. Not great, and I have always felt they won the Cup in the only era in NHL history that they could have. Lemaire forced the Devils to play a brand of hockey that was as fun as watching paint dry and while it was successful the truth is the Devils were better in 2000 and 2003 by a decent margin IMO. There is a reason Lemaire has had rotten success post lockout, that style doesn't fly today. But for a brief time in the dead puck era it did. But I cannot give credit to a team where they would almost certainly not win in they were playing in 90% of NHL history. The Islanders and Habs would win in any era. The 1995 Devils would not
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs were a very different team than the one you present:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1945.html
Add a third HHOF - Sweeney Schriner, plus established NHL regulars who played significantly more than two season(app 3/4 of the team) - Lorne Carr, Mel Hill, the Metz brothers, Gus Bodnar plus others and a very promising young goalie Frank McCool whose career was shortened by health issues.
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs were a very different team than the one you present:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1945.html
Add a third HHOF - Sweeney Schriner, plus established NHL regulars who played significantly more than two season(app 3/4 of the team) - Lorne Carr, Mel Hill, the Metz brothers, Gus Bodnar plus others and a very promising young goalie Frank McCool whose career was shortened by health issues.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
Not going to disagree with you TOO much as, yes, that Canes team is quite likely the worst since the lockout to win the cup, and likely will still be unless Montreal pulls off a miracle this year.
But I will say that the Southeast was in no way a benefit to their record that season. The Canes went 18-11-3 (.609%) against the SE, 13-4-3 (.725%) against the Atlantic and 14-5-1 (.725%) vs the Northeast, 7-2-1 (.75%) against the Western Conference. I believe the same held true for Tampa when they won cup actually. It might seem counterintuitive give how week the division has been historically, but it was the case in both instances where teams from the division won the cup.
I also think Brind'Amour has a better shot at the hall then most think, but that's another debate for another place and time.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,156
Hill, Carr and Schriner were all out of the NHL a year later for good. There wasn't anything overly special about the Metz brothers either, just solid NHL players. I counted at least 6 players on that team that were only in the NHL because of WWII. It's a very different Maple Leaf team from the Cup winning years of 1947-'49 than it was in 1945 that's for sure.
No way this team should have beaten the Habs in 1945 considering Montreal was probably the least affected by WWII, had the top three scorers in the NHL (Lach, Richard, Blake) a top two defender (Bouchard), the best goalie (Durnan), 6 of the 12 players on the 1st or 2nd all-star team and a 28 point lead in the standings over the Leafs in what was then a 50 game schedule.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
Okay, I promised a crude metric to at least provide a starting point, so here's what I did.
1) I took all NHL champions (all Stanley Cup champions except the 1924-25 Montreal squad) and calculated their marginal goal totals.
Marginal goals = (goals scored in excess of 0.5 times the league average) + (goals prevented below 1.5 times the league average)
I then expressed this as a MG/game average, and here's what popped out.
Top 5
1) 1919-20 Ottawa
2) 1943-44 Montreal
3) 1917-18 Toronto
4) 1976-77 Montreal
5) 1981-82 NY Islanders
61) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1927-28 NY Rangers
3) 1928-29 Boston
4) 1926-27 Ottawa
5) 1948-49 Toronto
2) Of course, the league has gone through a few ebbs and flows related to scoring. So I then normalized each year to the absolute total goals/game average (6.23708) and re-ran everything through. Here's how it looked after that.
Top 5
1) 1976-77 Montreal
2) 1977-78 Montreal
3) 1938-39 Boston
4) 1943-44 Montreal
5) 1975-76 Montreal
64) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1948-49 Toronto
3) 1966-67 Toronto
4) 1921-22 Toronto
5) 1952-53 Montreal
3) Of course, there have also been periods of expansion and great competitive imbalance. So I then took the adjusted marginal goals/game and multiplied it by the competitive balance number that I came up with for each season. This would serve to more or less punish teams that played in extremely uncompetitive eras and, for those in more competitive eras, serve to punish them less.
Top 5
1) 1958-59 Montreal
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 1988-89 Calgary
4) 1967-68 Montreal
5) 1957-58 Montreal
(#6 is 1976-77 Montreal)
38) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1917-18 Toronto
2) 1937-38 Chicago
3) 1944-45 Toronto
4) 1918-19 Montreal
5) 1919-20 Ottawa
I believe that a metric is largely useless unless it can also state what is plainly obvious. I don't know that I necessarily agree with what this last set of rankings spells out, but I think that consideration for competitive balance is reasonable and isn't something that should be ignored.
As far as the debates over the team of the 2000s, here's how each system ranks them.
Unadjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2007-08 Detroit
4) 2006-07 Anaheim
5) 2005-06 Carolina
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2002-03 New Jersey
8) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
9) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
Adjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 2001-02 Detroit
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 2002-03 New Jersey
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2006-07 Anaheim
8) 2005-06 Carolina
9) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
Adjusted marginal goals/game with competitive balance number
1) 2007-08 Detroit
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2000-01 Colorado
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 1999-00 New Jersey
6) 2002-03 New Jersey
7) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
8) 2006-07 Anaheim
9) 2005-06 Carolina
1) I took all NHL champions (all Stanley Cup champions except the 1924-25 Montreal squad) and calculated their marginal goal totals.
Marginal goals = (goals scored in excess of 0.5 times the league average) + (goals prevented below 1.5 times the league average)
I then expressed this as a MG/game average, and here's what popped out.
Top 5
1) 1919-20 Ottawa
2) 1943-44 Montreal
3) 1917-18 Toronto
4) 1976-77 Montreal
5) 1981-82 NY Islanders
61) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1927-28 NY Rangers
3) 1928-29 Boston
4) 1926-27 Ottawa
5) 1948-49 Toronto
2) Of course, the league has gone through a few ebbs and flows related to scoring. So I then normalized each year to the absolute total goals/game average (6.23708) and re-ran everything through. Here's how it looked after that.
Top 5
1) 1976-77 Montreal
2) 1977-78 Montreal
3) 1938-39 Boston
4) 1943-44 Montreal
5) 1975-76 Montreal
64) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1948-49 Toronto
3) 1966-67 Toronto
4) 1921-22 Toronto
5) 1952-53 Montreal
3) Of course, there have also been periods of expansion and great competitive imbalance. So I then took the adjusted marginal goals/game and multiplied it by the competitive balance number that I came up with for each season. This would serve to more or less punish teams that played in extremely uncompetitive eras and, for those in more competitive eras, serve to punish them less.
Top 5
1) 1958-59 Montreal
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 1988-89 Calgary
4) 1967-68 Montreal
5) 1957-58 Montreal
(#6 is 1976-77 Montreal)
38) 2006-07 Anaheim
Bottom 5
1) 1917-18 Toronto
2) 1937-38 Chicago
3) 1944-45 Toronto
4) 1918-19 Montreal
5) 1919-20 Ottawa
I believe that a metric is largely useless unless it can also state what is plainly obvious. I don't know that I necessarily agree with what this last set of rankings spells out, but I think that consideration for competitive balance is reasonable and isn't something that should be ignored.
As far as the debates over the team of the 2000s, here's how each system ranks them.
Unadjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2007-08 Detroit
4) 2006-07 Anaheim
5) 2005-06 Carolina
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2002-03 New Jersey
8) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
9) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
Adjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 2001-02 Detroit
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 2002-03 New Jersey
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2006-07 Anaheim
8) 2005-06 Carolina
9) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
Adjusted marginal goals/game with competitive balance number
1) 2007-08 Detroit
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2000-01 Colorado
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 1999-00 New Jersey
6) 2002-03 New Jersey
7) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
8) 2006-07 Anaheim
9) 2005-06 Carolina
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,376
- 4,504
2006 was the best season of Brind'Amour's career. He was in the running for the Hart and Smythe. His career curve was not that of a typical player. In the late 90's and early 2000's, he was really nothing speacial in most seasons, despite being in his prime age-wise. But something happened in the lockout year and he came back as a dominant force in 2006.
Staal, Stillman, Williams, Cullen and Cole all had their best seasons. Throw in Weight and Recchi who were still playing at a decent level, plus Whitney and you've got a superb compliment of forwards. Their average defense only needed to be average when you have that much strength up front, and most of those forwards were solid in more areas that offensive production. When everyone on your team is playing great all at the same time, 3rd overall and a Cup is the result. Like I mentioned earlier, everything fell into place at the right time as far as players hitting their stride. But it is not at all the same as a case like the '86 Habs where everything fell into place in terms of every Cup contender getting upset early on.
Who cares how many future HOFers the team had, it's all about how they played in that particular season. Last year's Penguins only had two guys who look like future HOFers. The 2008 Red Wings probably the same (Chelios and Hasek were fringe players so I'm not counting them).
I'd stack the 2006 Hurricanes up against any post-lockout Cup winner. I don't think any one of the four stands out above the others.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I knew someone would say this, but I just don't see it.
They were the President's Trophy winners, had the Hart winner on the team, and other great players like Boyle, Lecavalier, and Richards. Also great complimentary players like Kubina. And don't forget that Khabibulin was probably a Top 5 goalie in the world for a couple of years before the lockout. In 2003, the Lightning looked like a great up and coming team, so it's not like they came out of nowhere like the 2006 Canes. I think the lockout and bad cap management killed the chances of the Lightning having an extended run of success.
