Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[Michael Farkas]

Please tell me more about how strong the NHL was in the late 70s, where Terry O'reilly lead the 2nd best team in the league in scoring. Lol.

I'm not going to do more homework to try to support your fantasy about a WHA team beating possibly the best team in NHL history.

But just to be clear (again), I don't find the late 70's NHL to be strong either. So, going down to a single, completely random data point ("lol") with that isn't going to do anything for anyone...

 

[Gorskyontario]

your fantasy about a WHA team beating possibly the best team in NHL history.

Please quote me where I said the Jets would beat the Habs. I distinctly said they would beat every team(in the late 70s) except the late 70's habs.

Also good you're admitting you're wrong.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok fine...they wouldn't beat the Habs. The Habs who were taken, famously, to 7 games by Boston in '79...who you seem to be openly mocking. And the powerhouse Jets in '78, according to the oft-cited exhibition matches, put this on the menu...

Tied a 20-win St. Louis team.
Lost to a 19-win Colorado team.
Lost to a last place (30 win) Rangers team twice.
Tied the worst team in the NHL Minnesota and then beat them 6-5.

So...I know in this case, nnnooowwwwwwww the exhibition games won't count and will be dismissed...but they hardly beat any of these bottom NHL teams and then when they entered the league, they continued to not beat them...but I'm supposed to believe that they'd be the second best team in the NHL also?

Maybe some convincing video work about how the Jets would take the league by storm and create sustainable offense would get this off the mat...?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Ok fine

The things that make you the most mad, are the things you know are true. The wha had a huge win record over the NHL in the 70s.

WHAhockey.com - WHA vs NHL

34-22-7
I don't have an answer as to why they lost to inferior teams, it happens. Nhl teams have lost to random european teams, and AHL teams in the past(things pointed out to discredit the WHA win record).
The sample size is large enough to prove it isn't a fluke. The third best nhl team in the 70s was.... The flyers? A team with maybe 5 guys who could skate? I would love to see Andre Dupont or Ed Van Impe try to contain Bobby Hull.

but they hardly beat any of these bottom NHL teams and then when they entered the league

Without most of their good players, either by being claimed or retiring. You seem genuinely confused by this concept? As if you genuinely don't understand it. I suggest doing some research on the nhl expansion draft in 1979.

 

[Gorskyontario]

@Michael Farkas, also dude you didn't even use the preseason record from the Jets strongest season.

77-78
1-2 vs north stars
4-3 over north stars
6-2 over blues
3-0 over blues
1-0 over red wings

also unrelated, probably the 2nd strongest jets team(even though they lost in the finals)

In 76-77
5-3 over Penguins
6-2 over the blues.

 

[Crosby2010]

Mike Babcock is an underrated coach now. He wasn't underrated at his peak, but he is now. I don't think that the Detroit rosters post-lockout were as loaded as people believe beyond the top three players, and a massive portion of Detroit's success was the way they played and how well verything was executed. 2008 Detroit is the best post-lockout team but it really isn't the best roster. Should Detroit have won more than 1 up from 2006-2009? Yeah, probably, but I don't hold it against Babcock that Anaheim was a beast of a team in 2007 or that Detroit was riddled with injuries while the NHL moved the schedule ahead in 2009. 2006 easily could have been a Stanley Cup, but it was also an awkward transition year. If someone is judging how well Detroit played with its roster rather than binary Cup results, Babcock looks pretty great.

I'll go more unpopular and suggest that several teams are doing themselves a disservice by not pursuing Babcock, or doing what Columbus did. The way Toronto has turned out also makes Babcock look better, not that he was remotely perfect.

I did not like the drama the Columbus players brought on with Babcock. My guess is that he has nothing to prove and once he realized how soft the NHL was in 2024 he probably just said "Screw it, I'm done" more than Columbus actually releasing him. I honestly think the NHL is too soft and too pampered and the players are far too whiny and entitled these days for a Babcock type to coach. And go back all-time and you find many like him. So that's my guess. Sort of like Don Cherry for me. I didn't like the treatment of Cherry in 2019, but I look at the NHL in 2024 and there just isn't the.....................testosterone especially among the analysts and such and I don't know if they can handle Cherry's honesty anymore.

I agree on the 2008 Wings too. Babcock had them dialed in like the 2014 Canadian Olympic team. Maybe someday he gets some love for the Hall of Fame.

I dug into this here before here but the search function sucks.

Sakic and Forsberg had noticeably higher PPG in the first two rounds compared to the last two. Both also played strong defensive roles. But both (Forsberg in particular) enjoyed weaker defensive matchups.

The Jagr Penguins typically faced stronger teams in round one and two. And he was the sole focus from 1997-2000.

I don't think great is the correct descriptor for Jagr in the playoffs. But he was certainly good and produced about as good as can be expected in the circumstances without Lemieux. I think there are very real criticisms for how the team collapsed in 1993, 1996, and 2001. Which is on Lemieux just as much.

He doesn't have a McDavid 2022, Sakic 1996, Forsberg 2002, Hull 1971, Bourque 1983, Ovechkin 2009, Crosby 2008.

He doesn't lose anything in the playoffs. But he doesn't gain anything either.

Obviously these are Mario's teams in 1991 and 1992 but Jagr was pretty darn good in 1992

Well this should be easy to prove empirically or not. I know Anaheim in '07 and Vegas in '23 had a disproportionately high number of Canadian players, but has that otherwise been true? Team like Rangers in '94, Detroit their years and '08 in particular would likely go the other way, and Tampa went back to back with a lead Forward-D-Goalie trio of Kucherov-Hedman-Vasilevskiy. Someone can do a deep dive into this, but I suspect it'd probably be pretty random and vary heavily year to year.

The reason I say this is because it is true more often than not, by a surprising amount. When you consider maybe 45% of the NHL is Canadian then Vegas in 2023 obviously counts, Colorado in 2022 including high profile Canadian boys, Tampa in 2020 and 2021 as well although you are right about their 5 star players 3 were European. St. Louis in 2019 barely had any non-Canadians. Washington in 2018 is the most recent exception. Not a lot of Canadians, and not a lot of high profile Canadians either, Holtby being the most important, and he obviously was important. Penguins in 2016 and 2017 were not necessarily one or the other. Plenty of good Canadians, some other non-Canadians that were there too. Chicago's Cups were very Canadian-laden with the most starting in 2010, still good in 2013 and maybe the least but still at least at the average normal NHL level in 2015. High profile Canucks too. Kings in 2012 were pretty Canadian-laden, at least average, but 2014 was much more Canadian-laden. 2011 Bruins were heavy Canadian-esque, although admittedly there were some high profile non-Canadians. 2009 Pens were not heavy with Europeans, more Canadians than normal, still plenty of Americans helping too. A very heavy North American-laden team.

2008 Red Wings is a bit like the 2018 Captials. Heavy European flavour. Surprisingly more Canadians on the 2008 Wings than we remember, but one thing that stands out is that there wasn't stand out Canadians on that team. Like 2018 their goalie was Canadian. 2007 Ducks are maybe as heavy Canadian as anyone post-lockout perhaps (2019 Blues too). 2006 Carolina is a hybrid. Some Canadians, many who made big contributions, but some non-Canadians there who also did. That's post lockout. So I think the story checks out where the Cup winner more often than not by a surprising amount has a higher percentage of Canadian players than the league average.

Considering the Canadiens of the 1970s, Islanders of the 1980s and Oilers of the 1980s obviously are all Canadian-laden, the first time you might have a bit of a drop would be the 1991 and 1992 Penguins, who were still heavy with Canadian talent, and important talent too. 1993 Habs are known as the last team to win the Cup that only had North Americans, and most were Canadian. The 1975 Flyers are the last Cup winning team to be all Canadian. 1994 Rangers were a mixed bag, here is the thing, the 1995 Devils did have Canadians, but they were heavy on the American side. 1996 and 2001 Avs had lots of Canadians but some important Euros/Americans too. The 1997, 1998 and 2002 Red Wings might be the first team with lots of Europeans on the team but still lots of Canadians and especially lots of them on the bottom two lines, plus Yzerman, Shanahan, etc. Devils in 2000 and 2003 had both. Tampa was heavy on Canadians in 2004.

I did do a check on all of this before I initially posted just to confirm, but yeah I think the theme is that you still want those Canadian boys on your team. Come back to me in a couple of weeks. If Edmonton wins then they are heavy on the Canadian talent. If the Rangers win, then they aren't so much. Dallas would be 2nd, Florida maybe 3rd. We'll see.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Not sure where we’re going with this Canadian boy tangent, but a couple years back I made a headcount of Europeans playing in the cup finals, since Matti Hagman became the first back in 1977:

1977 1 (Hagman, 1 GP Bruins: 1st ever)
1978 0
1979 2 (both Rangers)
1980 1 (Persson, Islanders)
1981 2 (one each)
1982 9
1983 5
1984 7
1985 8
1986 3
1987 8
1988 3
1989 4
1990 4 (all Oilers)
1991 4
1992 7
1993 3 (all Kings)
1994 7
1995 9
1996 9
1997 12
1998 13
1999 8
2000 10
2001 9
2002 16
2003 12
2004 12
2006 10
2007 7
2008 15
2009 17
2010 8
2011 10
2012 11
2013 15
2014 8
2015 14
2016 10
2017 13
2018 15
2019 11
2020 18
2021 12
2022 14
2023 8

Average number of Europeans per cup final per decade:
1970s: 0.3
1980s: 5
1990s: 7.6
2000s: 10.8
2010s: 11.5
2020s: 13

The Golden Knights were indeed remarkably heavy on Canadian players with 16 out of 22 skaters during last year’s playoffs being Canadian.


Canadian skaters on cup winners

Year / Can players % of total / Team / Can players/total w/ at least one playoff GP / % of roster

2023 42.4% Knights 16/22 72.7%

2022 42.7% Avs 11/21 52.3%

2021 42.7% Bolts 9/20 45%

2020 42.6% Bolts 11/24 45.8%

2019 43.5% Blues 14/21 66.6%

2018 45.1% Caps 6/23 26.1%

2017 44.9% Pens 7/23 30.4%

2016 49.0% Pens 7/22 31.8%

2015 50.8% Hawks 11/23 47.8%

2014 51.7% Kings 14/21 66.6%

2013 52.9% Hawks 9/22 40.9%

2012 52.0% Kings 13/21 61.9%

2011 51.3% Bruins 16/20 80.0%

2010 51.6% Hawks 16/22 72.7%

2009 48.9% Pens 10/21 47.6%

2008 46.8% Wings 8/21 38.1%

2007 48.5% Ducks 18/26 69.2%

2006 49.8% Canes 11/21 52.4%

Conclusions:

11/18 Cup winning rosters featured more than a league average amount of Canadian skaters. No evidence of it being possible to win Stanley Cup without at least a #4 D (Brad Stuart), two checking forwards (Cleary, Draper) and a goalie from Canada.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

This may not be that outrageous of an opinion, but I think video replay for stuff like offsides and goaltender interference is absolutely killing the flow of the game and eliminating momentum swings that can be key to teams winning (or losing) hockey games.

I also think:

- the delay of game penalty for pucks over the glass is completely ridiculous;
- goals directed in with a players skate should count; and
- pucks being knocked down with high sticks shouldn't be whistled down

I think there is a place in hockey for the use of video replay to get major penalties (hits to the head, cross-checks, hits from behind) "correct", but I think offside plays, icings, etc. are best left to the linesmen's judgment and discretion. There are two of them on the ice - train them up to do their jobs better and leave it to them!

I'd like to see the league put a premium on speeding up game times and preserving the flow of the game and momentum. Ticky tack calls and lengthy video replays only serve to lengthen games and bore fans. Hockey is a free flowing game with four officials on the ice that should be able to get 90% of the calls correct using their judgment and experience, which is good enough for me. I feel like perfection is the enemy of good in a lot of these cases (and yes, I know the league does this in order to remove the perception of bias in a legalized gambling environment).

One of these days a team is going to win an important game in OT and celebrate a championship, only to have it undergo a (lengthy) replay for an offside call and have it called back.

 

[DitchMarner]

This may not be that outrageous of an opinion, but I think video replay for stuff like offsides and goaltender interference is absolutely killing the flow of the game and eliminating momentum swings that can be key to teams winning (or losing) hockey games.

I also think:

- the delay of game penalty for pucks over the glass is completely ridiculous;
- goals directed in with a players skate should count; and
- pucks being knocked down with high sticks shouldn't be whistled down

I think there is a place in hockey for the use of video replay to get major penalties (hits to the head, cross-checks, hits from behind) "correct", but I think offside plays, icings, etc. are best left to the linesmen's judgment and discretion. There are two of them on the ice - train them up to do their jobs better and leave it to them!

I'd like to see the league put a premium on speeding up game times and preserving the flow of the game and momentum. Ticky tack calls and lengthy video replays only serve to lengthen games and bore fans. Hockey is a free flowing game with four officials on the ice that should be able to get 90% of the calls correct using their judgment and experience, which is good enough for me. I feel like perfection is the enemy of good in a lot of these cases (and yes, I know the league does this in order to remove the perception of bias in a legalized gambling environment).

One of these days a team is going to win an important game in OT and celebrate a championship, only to have it undergo a (lengthy) replay for an offside call and have it called back.

I completely agree with the first paragraph. I don't like the fact that an apparent goal can be taken off the board because of a missed offside. I made a thread once saying that it seems arbitrary to check for a missed offside preceding a (possible) goal but not do anything about missed icings and missed offsides.

Furthermore, hockey games aren't played by robots: when a team's players celebrate and get excited because they think the team has scored a goal and then it comes off the board, the effect can be deflating. And as a fan, I now sometimes finding myself reluctant to get too excited when it seems my team has scored because of the possibility of a review and overturned goal.

Personally, I'd rather let the officials handle offsides and accept a small margin of human error.


I do disagree about puck over the glass penalties, though. I think those should be called. If they were eliminated, I do think some (not all) players would intentionally try to shoot the puck over the glass to relieve pressure at times.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

I completely agree with the first paragraph. I don't like the fact that an apparent goal can be taken off the board because of a missed offside. I made a thread once saying that it seems arbitrary to check for a missed offside preceding a (possible) goal but not do anything about missed icings and missed offsides.

Furthermore, hockey games aren't played by robots: when a team's players celebrate and get excited because they think the team has scored a goal and then it comes off the board, the effect can be deflating. And as a fan, I now sometimes finding myself reluctant to get too excited when it seems my team has scored because of the possibility of a review and overturned goal.

Personally, I'd rather let the officials handle offsides and accept a small margin of human error.


I do disagree about puck over the glass penalties, though. I think those should be called. If they were eliminated, I do think some (not all) players would intentionally try to shoot the puck over the glass to relieve pressure at times.

I would treat pucks over the glass the same way as we treat icings...the offending team can't make a line change and the faceoff would be in the offending team's zone. Generally, players shoot pucks over the glass for the same reason as they ice the puck - to relieve pressure. Players ice the pick by mistake from time to time (missed passes), but I think the same can be said for pucks over the glass...not all are intentional.

To me, similar intention + similar outcomes should equal similar consequences.

Edit: to discourage icings and pucks over the glass, I would suggest providing the attacking team the choice of which side of the ice the faceoff will take place...a minor but perhaps consequential option if the attacking team has a centre that is very strong on faceoffs on one particular side of the ice.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Worst part of offsides review is it gives the defense a free roll.

Take a powerplay. If an offsides is missed, two things happen:

1) the puck is eventually cleared, the offsides is irrelevant, play on since nobody ever challenges offsides if there is not a goal to overturn.

2) the puck is never cleared, the team that was offsides (but uncalled) scores, coach’s challenge the offsides, the play is overturned and it resets back to the time of the offsides.

By missing the call to begin with, the defending team is now unintentionally getting a major advantage because they have an extra try to get a kill. In an attempt to prevent one side gaining an advantage, they actually give a bigger advantage to the other side.

 

[MadLuke]

Something that is tricky with video replay, even if you have agree with them I think a consensus would be for stuff about lines and pucks, if it take a long time to tell with all those HD-slow motion camera it was close enough that we should not care about it to start with, but once they start the process getting it wrong on a review with some: if a very quick review do not overturn it clearly we do not change the call mentality is too hard to have, reaction of a reviewed call not being reviewed correctly would be bad and we already stopping the play.

Ideally, you would have people checking and telling the ref on their hears if something big on camera should be overturned (if we have to have it at all.....) that would go on the flow and not stop the process, with some everyone agree if it is not a big enough egregious play that the ref on the ice miss plus the many camera angle guy also miss on a quick look, we leave with it.

It is a really hard problem and with the current rules it is impossible to automate (stuff like being in control of the puck is incredibly subjective).

The worst case are the above, teams that play a full 90 seconds after an offside and rolling back everything that happened since, a sport like NFL football that always stop after clear short event or baseball are much better suited for video review, soccer-hockey not so much.

 

[blogofmike]

The reason why the top scorers from the WHA are the ones that are chosen is because the WHA was a hollow league full of incomplete, one-way players primarily.

The AHL is a development league. The guys that can top the charts there might actually be AHL lifers. Quad-A players etc. So, there isn't an analogy to be made in that respect.

Right now, it's pretty fair to say that the AHL is the second best league in the world - or at least is heavily in the conversation. And even right now, there are guys near the top of their sheet - Rocco Grimaldi, T.J. Tynan, Chris Terry, etc. that just aren't NHLers.

The WHA was intending to challenge for the top league in the world...it responded with a Summit Series of its own, it invited Euro pro exhibitions, it tried to challenge for the Stanley Cup, etc.

That seems like a solid explanation of why the WHA had guys capable of playing on a top line, and why life was tough for E6 NHL teams.

In the meantime, Pete Mahovlich having an 11 point season in the AHL in 1967 won't register here...but he becomes a multi-time 100 point scorer in the NHL.

Well he did already have NHL experience over a couple of seasons, but yes, he turned out okay. Big M peaks at 117 in 1975, with 23 points in 10 games against the Scouts and Caps.

Despite a huge advantage for WHA teams coming into the league - because they kept a fair amount of their players...especially compared to teams starting from complete scratch. The WHA teams in 1980 had the same record as the "blitzed" 1968 expansion teams.

E6 vs. O6 40-86-16 (.340)
WHA4 vs. "established" NHL 66-134-40 (.358)

(established = removed WHA teams, plus expansion Col and Wsh).

We're removing expansion teams that are in their 6th season?

Here's another way of looking at how expansion teams fared:

Expansion Teams vs Original 6, Playoff W-L
1968: 0-4
1969: 0-4
1970: 0-4
1971: 2-8
1972: 0-8
1973: 4-12
Series Record: 0-10
Cumulative Record: 6-40

WHA Teams vs Original 17, Playoff W-L
1980: 0-6
1981: 7-7
1982: 10-15
1983: 9-8 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 3)
1984: 15-4 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 3)
1985: 23-13 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 4)
Series Record: 19-11, (7-7, not counting Oilers)
Cumulative Record: 64-53 (32-32, not counting Oilers)

It's not just that the 60s/70s NHL didn't have enough talent on Day 1, they didn't have enough talent on Day 2,001.


Also, it's neither here nor there, but I have a theory I want to look into that the Seals and/or Kings might have been able to steal some early wins from east coast teams on back-to-backs who might have never been on a plane (or to California) before...

Edmonton is the same from '80 to '81, Quebec improves. But both Hartford and Winnipeg get even worse the next season.

Winnipeg being a .200 team is the big thing that hurts the WHA's collective record. However, it should be noted while they kept a "fair amount of their players," a big reason the mighty 78 Jets tanked by 1980 is that they were a top heavy scoring team that lead the WHA in goals with 4 100+ point scorers.

By 1980 2 of the 4 are in New York. Kent Nilsson, who managed to carry some lesser linemates in 1979 without the others, is in Atlanta. The 4th is Bobby Hull, who turned 40 and 1978 was his last full season.

They even lost Thommie Bergman during the 1978 season, because they had to sell his contract to the Red Wings for cash.

So heading into the NHL, they had a 35-year old Sjoberg.

The 77 Jets were built like the 96 Pens. Were Lemieux to effectively retire, Francis to go to the Flames, Jagr and Nedved to head to the Rangers, and Mironov to the Wings, what's left? Zubov (and the Jets' Zubov is 35, turning 36) and new number one scorer Morris Lukowich (probably akin to Smolinski).

It probably shouldn't be too shocking that they turned into a lottery-equivalent team.

Of course, the 1980s had talented players, so the Jets were able to be a good team (usually), despite playing in a challenging division the rest of the decade.

Let's say that the quality of the NHL today is a 10 out of 10. And let's say that in the condensed league of the mid 60's, it was a 9 out of 10.

Where do you roughly feel like 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, respectively, fall on that scale?

I'm just trying to figure out if we're really coming from that great of a distance apart...

It depends on where you look. I'd think 1985 would be high, 1980 would be lower, 1975 would be the nadir, and 1970 would balance out to be around 1980.

But I suppose I'll take a few random looks and see if I can get some numbers.

 

[blogofmike]

Between 95 and 97
Lemieux: 1.94 PPG
Jagr: 1.68 PPG

If we remove secondary assists the gap widens to 20% more.
Lemieux: 1.54
Jagr: 1.29

What is your point? That powerplay goals should not be counted at all? Or that they are less important, more replaceable etc? If they are just less important, then aren't SHG more important? Lemieux scored 8, Jagr just 1. It's quite obvious Mario was still the better player despite being 30+.


So? Lemieux scored 13 goals shorthanded. Yzerman just 3. Maybe Yzerman should have improved his powerplays and shorthanded play.


So post cancer post back surgeries washed up 31 year old Lemieux still outscored a superstar at his very peak. That seems more of a pro-Lemieux argument if anything.


Your cherry picking gets more and more outrageous with each statement. You're now picking the two seasons where Lemieux barely played due to injuries and no he didn't really outscore him. His goals per game was almost 50% higher than what Gretzky produced. It's just that Gretzky raked up more of his secondary assists which led him to having a tiny bit higher PPG. Once you remove secondary assists injured Lemieux's numbers stay at 1.57 PPG while Gretzky's at 1.49.

If he just include his previous season w/o secondary assists
Lemieux: 1.80
Gretzky: 1.51

So 27-29 year old healthy Gretzky was badly outscored by Lemieux with health issues.

Lemieux was in such a good position with his linemates and high number of PP chances, you could hypothetically put an average player like John Cullen in his place and Cullen could outscore everyone in the NHL but Wayne Gretzky.

NHL Stats

Also, yes, PP points tend to be replaceable. For example, 96 Lemieux and 97 Lemieux score the same rate of ES points per game. He drops almost 40 points because he goes from a high PPO environment to a medium PPO environment.

Mario "relying on the PP"?

Lemieux's 1990 stats may be inflated on a per game basis. His sample size is mostly his point streak. People on point streaks tend to be experiencing good luck. It would be like Gretzky stopping after his 51 game point streak, when he was scoring 3.00 PPG. Even Wayne Gretzky is unlikely to continue scoring at that rate.

Lemieux's next best streak had him scoring at a similarly high PPG rate with 59 points in 26 games (2.11). He was at 1.61 PPG the rest of the season and managed 141 points in 79 games.

Based on his 20 game point streak Patrick Kane was going to score 170 points in 2019. Instead of running away with the Art Ross, he finished 3rd in points. NHL Stats

Something similar happens to Crosby in 2011. 50 points in 25 games during a streak. 16 points in the other 16, but it still skews the season pace to a career-high 132 points.

 

[MadLuke]

Also, yes, PP points tend to be replaceable. For example, 96 Lemieux and 97 Lemieux score the same rate of ES points per game. He drops almost 40 points because he goes from a high PPO environment to a medium PPO environment.

That not an example of PP points being replaceable, Penguins PP% not going down when Lemieux miss game would be more representative of that or maybe I misunderstand.

If you mean that PP points are dependant of having power play to start with, yes obviously which him dropping his points total when PPO go down would show but too obvious to be what you meant I imagine.

 

[K Fleur]

The best era of hockey is not the era you grew up watching.






It’s the era I grew up watching.

 

[PavelBure10]

I like fighting. The role of an enforcer had its part in the game. It kept the rats at bay, and the players honest on the ice. Cheapshots had repercussions. I wasn't huge on the stage fighting, but a cheap Claude Lemieux hit from behind deserved a Darren McCarty beating.

 

[norrisnick]

I like fighting. The role of an enforcer had its part in the game. It kept the rats at bay, and the players honest on the ice. Cheapshots had repercussions. I wasn't huge on the stage fighting, but a cheap Claude Lemieux hit from behind deserved a Darren McCarty beating.

If fighting kept rats at bay, Lemieux wouldn't have needed to deserve a beating. Enforcers have never been anything other than implements of vengeance. There has never been a deterrent. They aren't nukes...

 

[Staniowski]

- goals directed in with a players skate should count

It's okay to direct a puck into the net with your skate as long as there is no motion that propels the puck....i.e. you can tactically angle your skate to direct the puck in. If the skate is relatively stationary, it won't propel the puck.

Even so, the rule should be discussed.

 

[Staniowski]

Not sure where we’re going with this Canadian boy tangent, but a couple years back I made a headcount of Europeans playing in the cup finals, since Matti Hagman became the first back in 1977:

1977 1 (Hagman, 1 GP Bruins: 1st ever)
1978 0
1979 2 (both Rangers)
1980 1 (Persson, Islanders)
1981 2 (one each)
1982 9
1983 5
1984 7
1985 8
1986 3
1987 8
1988 3
1989 4
1990 4 (all Oilers)
1991 4
1992 7
1993 3 (all Kings)
1994 7
1995 9
1996 9
1997 12
1998 13
1999 8
2000 10
2001 9
2002 16
2003 12
2004 12
2006 10
2007 7
2008 15
2009 17
2010 8
2011 10
2012 11
2013 15
2014 8
2015 14
2016 10
2017 13
2018 15
2019 11
2020 18
2021 12
2022 14
2023 8

Average number of Europeans per cup final per decade:
1970s: 0.3
1980s: 5
1990s: 7.6
2000s: 10.8
2010s: 11.5
2020s: 13

The Golden Knights were indeed remarkably heavy on Canadian players with 16 out of 22 skaters during last year’s playoffs being Canadian.


Canadian skaters on cup winners

Year / Can players % of total / Team / Can players/total w/ at least one playoff GP / % of roster

2023 42.4% Knights 16/22 72.7%

2022 42.7% Avs 11/21 52.3%

2021 42.7% Bolts 9/20 45%

2020 42.6% Bolts 11/24 45.8%

2019 43.5% Blues 14/21 66.6%

2018 45.1% Caps 6/23 26.1%

2017 44.9% Pens 7/23 30.4%

2016 49.0% Pens 7/22 31.8%

2015 50.8% Hawks 11/23 47.8%

2014 51.7% Kings 14/21 66.6%

2013 52.9% Hawks 9/22 40.9%

2012 52.0% Kings 13/21 61.9%

2011 51.3% Bruins 16/20 80.0%

2010 51.6% Hawks 16/22 72.7%

2009 48.9% Pens 10/21 47.6%

2008 46.8% Wings 8/21 38.1%

2007 48.5% Ducks 18/26 69.2%

2006 49.8% Canes 11/21 52.4%

Conclusions:

11/18 Cup winning rosters featured more than a league average amount of Canadian skaters. No evidence of it being possible to win Stanley Cup without at least a #4 D (Brad Stuart), two checking forwards (Cleary, Draper) and a goalie from Canada.

I had to check Anders Kallur '80. I knew he was on the team, but didn't play in the playoffs.

 

[Staniowski]

Even though it is treated as such; Save% is not the end all be all of goaltender statistics.

Not only is Save Percentage not everything, it's not a whole lot of anything as far as measuring goaltenders. They (obviously) contribute to it, and so does everybody else.

 

[Staniowski]

The Conn Smythe should go to a player from the losing team in the finals roughly half the time. Also the scope of the trophy, where only a player from one team and maybe a second once a decade or so has a chance to win it, leaves it pretty irrelevant to me.

I agree. I would vote for somebody from the losing team quite often, e.g. Fedorov '95. At least it expands the pool of players a bit.

The Conn Smythe has generally taken on a higher profile than it once did. When I was young, it just seemed like a bonus award for the winning team, an icing on the cake. But a lot of people consider it a very important award now, which is hard to understand since the winner is only competing against their teammates, really.

 

[The Panther]

The Conn Smythe has generally taken on a higher profile than it once did. When I was young, it just seemed like a bonus award for the winning team, an icing on the cake. But a lot of people consider it a very important award now, which is hard to understand since the winner is only competing against their teammates, really.

I don't think the Conn Smythe should go to the losing team more often, but I do agree with what you say here.

In general, I find NHL hockey fans have become more obsessed with individual accomplishments and player-hardware and less interested in team accomplishment.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

And the proposal is to replace him with Hasek...?

Uh... hell yes?

Lets take a thought experiment, we take peak Hasek (lets say 1998) or Lemieux from 1993 and put them on the worst modern team in the 1993 Senators. Just the raw difference in GSAA between Sidorkiewicz and Hasek is 105 goals, enough to take one of the worst teams of all time to about the level of Hartford/Tampa (bad but somewhat competitive for a playoff spot).

Lemieuxs point total is 160, which is probably more like 200 in a full season similar to his other peak season in 1989, but points arent a useful measure of cumulative goal differential added by the player because of defensive impact, the skew of powerplay time, and the limited value of assists. If you take Lemieuxs healthiest, best seasons in his prime (lets say 88, 89, 93, 96, 97) and average his plus minus, hes +31, which moves up to +35 if you prorate it to full 82 game seasons instead of the 70ish he was usually managing. Hes an excellent special teams player, but you expect him to bring 70+ goals in added value just from that? And thats just to equal peak Hasek in the value he brings to winning games.

The point is, if you take a peak Hasek and put him on any team in the league in almost any era he makes your team significantly better. He doesnt consume any powerplay time, you can play any system or style you want in front of him, and you dont have to bump out useful players like Zubov just to accomodate that. Its honestly kind of weird we dont have a goaltender in the big 4 because their impact is so clear cut like that.

 

[FerrisRox]

I don't have an answer as to why they lost to inferior teams, it happens.

Yeah, it's a real mystery.

Actually, here's an idea I could throw out there: Maybe they lost to those inferior teams because, compared to the NHL, they weren't a very good team and the reason they "lost" is because those other teams were better?