2016 to 2018 - The Eastern Conference's Poor man's version of the Western Conference 's 1996 to 2002?

[daver]

From the Stanley Cup Expectations thread, specifically Ovechkin and the Caps and their underperformance.

There is a somewhat broadly accepted narrative that from '96 to '02 the WCF was the "real" Stanley Cup Final given the WC won 6 of 7 Cups against a few mediocre EC champion teams and a combo of the three WC Cup winning teams (Wings, Avs, Stars) were in every WCF over those seven years save for one (2001).

The '97 to '02 Wings are as close to being a "dynasty" since 1990 as any other team. The Avs, with two Cups and five WCF appearances, are viewed as being on par with the Wings over that timeframe. They were the clear best two teams in both the regular season and the playoffs. The Stars had a very good three year run.

Forsberg and Sakic notably are viewed as "winners" and playoff warriors, relative to others with much longer Cup resumes.

From '16 to '18, the Pens and the Caps, and, though clearly not quite to the degree of the Stars, the Bolts, went through a similar pattern where one could argue the three times the Pens and Caps matched up in the EC 2nd Round it was the "real" Stanley Cup Final as each winner went to win the Cup final against fairly mediocre WC champion teams. The Caps won the President's Trophy twice and the Pens were #2 in regular season wins over that period.

I am willing to give Ovechkin and the Caps a bit of a pass on the "only once past the 2nd round" narrative given they lost to the best team in 2016 and 2017 in the 2nd round. Even though the Pens went 7 games against the Bolts in 2016, the Caps were the toughest opponent. The same with 2017 where 7 games was needed. In 2018, the Caps needed to go through the 2-time defending Cup champs, and a perennial contender in the Bolts, in 2018 to win their Cup.

The Caps were also unfortunate in 2009 to play the Pens in the 2nd round. It is very arguable that they were the 2nd best team in the EC that year too.

As for Ovechkin, he played at a GOAT level against the Pens in 2009, was very good in 2016, and underperformed in 2017.

Yes, generally speaking, the Caps underperformed during Ovechkin's time relative to expectation's, as did Ovechkin, but not to the degree where Ovechkin loses ground to players with clearly inferior regular season resumes in an all-time ranking sense.

Click to read more...

 

[WarriorofTime]

The divisional format throws making second round vs. conference finals relevant distinction out the window imo. There is no way for the two best teams from the same division to not meet by the second round. If one division is stronger than the other, this will also be the two strongest teams in the conference many times.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. But there are differences.

In the west in the late 90s, you had Dallas, Detroit and Colorado. That's 3 juggernauts. Here - you only have two. And honestly - as weird as it sounds to say this of the team with 2 cups - I'm not even sure Pittsburgh was really considered a juggernaut in this stretch.

Nobody expected Pittsburgh to win in 2015-2016 entering the season or playoffs
In 2016-2017 - they got some respect as cup champions, but the narrative was more around "nobody wins back to back cups anymore, no way they win", so I think this was a big surprise too
By 2017-2018, everyone thoguht for sure Pens were done winning (they had a very ~so-so regular season), and they did lose.

In the late 90s - I find that so often going into the playoffs you felt Detroit, Colorado, Dallas...they had to win, would be impossible to stop. Pittsburgh never really got that same feeling. They're a bit more like NJ in the late 90s/early 2000s if anything - they don't get as much respect as the other guys, but still find ways to win.

Capitals felt more like a juggernaut in 2016 and 2017 - and lost. By 2018? Nobody really had faith in them anymore, and that's when they won.

If there's a parallel to make to the late 90s - it's actually the early 2010s, with Chicago/LA. I think it was crystal clear to everyone in 2013 and 2014 that the winner of Chicago/LA in the WCF was winning the cup.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. But there are differences.

In the west in the late 90s, you had Dallas, Detroit and Colorado. That's 3 juggernauts. Here - you only have two. And honestly - as weird as it sounds to say this of the team with 2 cups - I'm not even sure Pittsburgh was really considered a juggernaut in this stretch.

Nobody expected Pittsburgh to win in 2015-2016 entering the season or playoffs
In 2016-2017 - they got some respect as cup champions, but the narrative was more around "nobody wins back to back cups anymore, no way they win", so I think this was a big surprise too
By 2017-2018, everyone thoguht for sure Pens were done winning (they had a very ~so-so regular season), and they did lose.

In the late 90s - I find that so often going into the playoffs you felt Detroit, Colorado, Dallas...they had to win, would be impossible to stop. Pittsburgh never really got that same feeling. They're a bit more like NJ in the late 90s/early 2000s if anything - they don't get as much respect as the other guys, but still find ways to win.

Capitals felt more like a juggernaut in 2016 and 2017 - and lost. By 2018? Nobody really had faith in them anymore, and that's when they won.

If there's a parallel to make to the late 90s - it's actually the early 2010s, with Chicago/LA. I think it was crystal clear to everyone in 2013 and 2014 that the winner of Chicago/LA in the WCF was winning the cup.

You're comparing to pre-cap loaded up superteams, the time between when the salaries exploded and when the lockout occurred really saw these teams load up in a big way. The Detroit '02 team had what, like 10 Hall of Famers? That's not a particularly fair fight.

With respect to Chicago/LA, I would agree with respect to 2014, but in 2013 (which is partially informed by being no conference crossovers), you had Pittsburgh/Boston in the Eastern Final. All four teams remaining had won the last four most recent Stanley Cups. Pittsburgh picked up Iginla at the deadline, Crosby and Malkin were healthy, they were a lot of people's pick. Boston had been the Cup champs two years prior, phenemonal defensively and very deep at forward. After sweeping the Penguins, they had plenty more buzz. They gave the Hawks a great series, it was 17-15 in terms of goals in the six games, every game was decided by 1 or 2 goals (and the Hawks only 2 goal win included an empty net goal) and they were about a minute away from taking it to Game 7.

 

[daver]

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. But there are differences.

In the west in the late 90s, you had Dallas, Detroit and Colorado. That's 3 juggernauts. Here - you only have two. And honestly - as weird as it sounds to say this of the team with 2 cups - I'm not even sure Pittsburgh was really considered a juggernaut in this stretch.

Nobody expected Pittsburgh to win in 2015-2016 entering the season or playoffs
In 2016-2017 - they got some respect as cup champions, but the narrative was more around "nobody wins back to back cups anymore, no way they win", so I think this was a big surprise too
By 2017-2018, everyone thoguht for sure Pens were done winning (they had a very ~so-so regular season), and they did lose.

In the late 90s - I find that so often going into the playoffs you felt Detroit, Colorado, Dallas...they had to win, would be impossible to stop. Pittsburgh never really got that same feeling. They're a bit more like NJ in the late 90s/early 2000s if anything - they don't get as much respect as the other guys, but still find ways to win.

Capitals felt more like a juggernaut in 2016 and 2017 - and lost. By 2018? Nobody really had faith in them anymore, and that's when they won.

If there's a parallel to make to the late 90s - it's actually the early 2010s, with Chicago/LA. I think it was crystal clear to everyone in 2013 and 2014 that the winner of Chicago/LA in the WCF was winning the cup.

Hence the use of the term "Poor Man's". I don't think any team post lockout reached or could reach the Wings/Avs level in the regular season or the playoffs. The salary cap has taken that away. The 2015 to 2022 Bolts is the closest to reaching that prolonged, deep playoff run status but only had the "strong favourite" aura about them in 2020 and 2021.

Interesting point about the Hawks/Kings. No East team was a big challenger except the 2013 Bruins. That being said, the 2012 Kings would have been the lower favourite than any of the Pens/Caps teams and the Hawks/Kings met only once. I agree that the 2013 WCF had the most "real" SCF feel about even though the actual SCF was the most competitive out of 2012 to 2014 and 2016 to 2018.

To counter your points though, the 2016 Pens are definitely in the conversation for 2nd best post lockout Cup winner behind the clear #1 - 2008 Wings. Then essentially the same team won again in 2017 in a less dominating fashion but great teams just find ways to win. I don't think you can discount a two in a row Cup winner given it has been only done two other times in the last 30 years. Not sure why they wouldn't have been favourites going into the 2017 playoffs. If not them, then it was the Caps.

Yes, the 2018 Caps regressed in the regular season to 6th place but is there really any surprise that they put it together to win the Cup? That they didn't really care about winning the President's Trophy for a 3rd time?

As for the 2018 Pens not being a favorite or the favorite, again, if not them, then who?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Not even close in my opinion.

 

[Vilica]

I basically completely agree with your point, and have contemplated making a version of it in any number of main board posts. It would be more accurate historically to take those 3 matchups (the 09 matchup is more like a conference final because of Detroit), and crediting them as Cup appearances. Therefore, Crosby would have 3 Cup wins in 5 appearances, and Ovechkin would have 1 Cup win in 3 appearances.

When you compile the stats over all 4 series, Pittsburgh outscored Washington 77-74 in 26 games, with a 14-12 record. Over 10000 simulations, the most likely outcome is 2 series wins apiece - but in this one, it was 3-1 Pittsburgh. I also felt it was unfortunate that neither Pittsburgh nor Washington ever faced off against Chicago or Los Angeles in that 2010-15 period as a matchup in the finals. A 09-10 Chicago-Washington matchup would've been spicy, particularly because I felt like the Caps matched up well against Chicago in their games in those years (though with the schedule imbalance who knows how accurate that is, Chicago played only 7-8 games against almost all Eastern opponents from 10-15, compared to 33 games against St. Louis).

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'd say the 2010-2014 Hawks-Kings-Canucks grouping has a better claim to this.

2010: Canucks beat the Kings, Hawks beat the Canucks in the semis and win the Cup
2011: Canucks beat the Hawks and go to the Finals
2012: Kings beat the Canucks and win the Cup
2013: Hawks beat the Kings in the WCF and win the Cup
2014: Kings beat the Hawks in the WCF and win the Cup

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'd say the 2010-2014 Hawks-Kings-Canucks grouping has a better claim to this.

2010: Canucks beat the Kings, Hawks beat the Canucks in the semis and win the Cup
2011: Canucks beat the Hawks and go to the Finals
2012: Kings beat the Canucks and win the Cup
2013: Hawks beat the Kings in the WCF and win the Cup
2014: Kings beat the Hawks in the WCF and win the Cup

2011 Hawks weren't very good. I know they almost pulled a Reverse Sweep but that was a testament to their core. They were very very shallow after a Cap Hell Summer in 2010. It took them a couple years to re-tool their depth.

 

[LightningStorm]

For 1996-2002, this only applies to seasons where the Devils weren't in the finals. In 2000, Devils/Stars was a tossup, as it would've been had they played the Avs in the finals a season earlier. In 2001, the Avs and Devils were the clear 2 best teams and on a collision course to meet the whole time. NJ would've been heavy favorites over St. Louis. But the WCF was the true SCF from 1996-1999 and 2002.

As for 2016-2018, I think this is looking too closely at the final outcome and thinking it was destined to be that all along, and that the loser also would've won the next 2 series. Plus the ensuing ECF went the distance all 3 seasons. To break it down each of those 3 seasons:

2016: For the Pens opponents, while I thought the Caps were the best team they faced, I thought the Bolts were a tougher matchup for them. The 2016 Pens overwhelmed teams with their speed, but the Bolts were fast enough to where the Pens couldn't exploit that advantage against them as much as the Caps. I do think the Caps win the cup if they beat the Pens, but overall the Pens toughest series was the Bolts due to the matchup, despite the Caps being a better team.

2017: I thought the winner was definitely winning the East with the Sens as their ECF opponent. But the Pens needed double OT in game 7 just to win this series, and then won the finals in 6 games where both tossup games went there way. I only bring this up to say it's not like it was a breeze for them after the Caps series. I will say though that had the Caps not had that stunning loss I think they win the cup a year earlier and the 2017 Caps are talked about in the group of the best post lockout cup winning teams.

2018: This is the year the "true SCF" narrative is revisionist history the most. This is when the Bolts went from being considered cup contenders, like 2015 and 2016, to cup favorites. The most anticipated matchup in the East that season was a potential Pittsburgh/Tampa ECF, with many having lost faith in the Caps ever winning a cup after their 2017 loss and subsequent fall in the standings. When the Caps did beat the Pens, the narrative was less that they were now on their way to winning the cup and more that they finally beat them because the Pens were out of gas. The Bolts were FAVORED going into the 2018 ECF, But Washington was a tough matchup for TB, and as a Bolts fan I think we beat Pittsburgh that year, as we matched up better against them. Point being, the Caps/Pens 2nd round series was far from the true SCF this season.

As for whether the Chicago/LA 2013 & 2014 WCF were the true SCF, I agree 2014 was, but 2013 wasn't. In fact, I think Boston beats LA in 2013.

 

[WarriorofTime]

2017: I thought the winner was definitely winning the East with the Sens as their ECF opponent. But the Pens needed double OT in game 7 just to win this series, and then won the finals in 6 games where both tossup games went there way.

While mentioned a lot and of course, accurate, I do think people sometimes forget that if Ottawa had won that Game 7, they would have been an example of "relatively weak team that got hot and made the Finals" that appear fairly regularly throughout NHL postseasons. They were 22nd in goals scored and 11th in goals against that season and missed the Playoffs the year before and year after. For lack of a better word, they would have been a "fluke"

 

[Hockeyville USA]

2018 was the Lightning's year in the East. They were great most of the year and the additions of McDonagh and Miller energized them. Then they crapped the bed against the Capitals as a result of Cooper being outcoached by Trotz, Cooper's failure to adjust, and the offense (most specifically Miller, Stamkos, and Kucherov) going full ghost mode in that Conference Final.