Chicago vs Pittsburgh: Which is the greater franchise in this generation?

[SirKillalot]

Penguins has the longevity and back to back. Blackhawks has the better peak (3 in 5 years). All in all, Both have 3 cups in 10 years. Penguins with one extra appearance in the final and one Eastern Conference Final Appearance. Blackhawks with two Western Conference Final Appearances.

Only real separator is that Blackhawks have missed the playoffs several times. So that means a little bit, at the same time not getting to the conference final for the Penguins more times than Blackhawks makes this a wash. Penguins on "style points" for not missing the playoffs, but don't really feel it separate the teams. One could say Penguins have had two contender cycles in a way, while Blackhawks only have had one.

 

[Voight]

07-08 Penguins, who were a point away from #1 in the conference.

They had Ty Conklin, former & future starter.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

-Chicago and LA are has beens.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

They had Ty Conklin, former & future starter.

Ty Conklin never lead his team in GP. You don't get to make up your own facts or history.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

I'd say Chicago.

Pittsburgh, up until the past two or three seasons, was on the verge of being considered underachieving, given the relative arsenal of top players they've had at their disposal. From his rookie year up until 2016, only 1 Stanley Cup for Crosby was far less than I'm sure many expected from him and the Pens. Only recently have they started to realize that potential.

Chicago, meanwhile, hit it big in 2011 and stayed dominant for the better part of a decade, the cream of the crop in the West up until this year. Or last year, if you want to count their loss at the hands of the Preds.

This is one of the more compelling arguments for Chicago's dominance that I've seen in this thread. I think Pittsburgh is still ahead because they've been a playoff team for longer and won back-to-back Cups, but I do appreciate this argument.

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

Penguins without a doubt.

I would honestly say that even though they are behind by 1 cup this decade, the Kings runs have been more impressive than the Hawks.

 

[daver]

I'd say Chicago.

Pittsburgh, up until the past two or three seasons, was on the verge of being considered underachieving, given the relative arsenal of top players they've had at their disposal. From his rookie year up until 2016, only 1 Stanley Cup for Crosby was far less than I'm sure many expected from him and the Pens. Only recently have they started to realize that potential.

Chicago, meanwhile, hit it big in 2011 and stayed dominant for the better part of a decade, the cream of the crop in the West up until this year. Or last year, if you want to count their loss at the hands of the Preds.

This sounds like a strawman argument. Just because a team didn't meet expectations doesn't mean it was worse.

 

[Dr Pepper]

This sounds like a strawman argument. Just because a team didn't meet expectations doesn't mean it was worse.

Tell that to everyone who's ripped on the Capitals during Ovys career.

Washington is the poster child for unrealized potential.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

Lose your starting goalie for over half the season and make the playoffs. Go ahead. Try. I'll be waiting here.

well the pens lost their best defenseman letang in 2017, and their starting goalie fleury for the 2016 playoffs

 

[quoipourquoi]

-I have to get a kick out of the Kings riding Chicago's coattails like they are something special. The Pacific division has 3 Cups since 1991. This is the worst division in all sports combined. If you are halfway decent you get a free trip to the Western Conference Finals just playing in the Pacific. Just look at Vegas beating up that sad group.

The division has only existed since 1993-94. In the 23 years since, they’ve represented the Western Conference in the Finals in 9 occasions: 4 times in 9 years when the Conference contained just two divisions, and 5 times in the 14 years when the Conference contained three divisions.

This does not seem to be poor performance relative to general expectation. Am I to assume you’ve forgotten that Dallas and Colorado were in the division?

Stanley Cups
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1999 Dallas Stars
2007 Anaheim Ducks
2012 Los Angeles Kings
2014 Los Angeles Kings

Stanley Cup Finals
1994 Vancouver Canucks
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1999 Dallas Stars
2000 Dallas Stars
2003 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
2007 Anaheim Ducks
2012 Los Angeles Kings
2014 Los Angeles Kings
2016 San Jose Sharks

President’s Trophy
1997 Colorado Avalanche
1999 Dallas Stars
2009 San Jose Sharks

 

[daver]

Tell that to everyone who's ripped on the Capitals during Ovys career.

Washington is the poster child for unrealized potential.

What does this have to do with anything? Meeting or not meeting expectations should be irrelevant in this discussion.

Were the Preds better than the Pens last year because they exceeded expectations more?

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

Gotta go with the Hawks here.

Not saying what the pens haven't accomplished isn't impressive, but I'm more comfortable with three in six compared to three in ten with a back to back.

Hawks have been destroyed by the league on account of the cap moreso then any other team, and still won Cups.

Imo, it's not even close.

 

[illpucks]

Pens had a weak East
Hawks lost 4th cup to Kings

 

[Tweed]

Gotta go with the Hawks here.

Not saying what the pens haven't accomplished isn't impressive, but I'm more comfortable with three in six compared to three in ten with a back to back.

Hawks have been destroyed by the league on account of the cap moreso then any other team, and still won Cups.

Imo, it's not even close.

It's not a question of "3 in 6" vs "3 in 10[sic]". It's a question of "3 in 13" vs "3 in 13".

The Hawks not being able to maintain success on account of the cap, is more of an indictment than anything. I would have to think that being able to navigate the cap, and achieve the same success, is more impressive than blowing your load and mis-managing a winning-formula. Food for thought.

 

[Tweed]

Pens had a weak East
Hawks lost 4th cup to Kings

Pens lost 4th cup to the '08 team that everybody is saying is better than any Hawks, Kings or Pens team iced in this generation.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

It all depends on what you value more... Peak or Longevity... (More realistically, I think it depends on which team you dislike more).

Chicago had a better peak in a short window: 3 cup appearances (and wins) in 6 years.

Pittsburgh has a longer peak : 4 cup appearances (3 wins) in 10 years, with the added benefit of being the first team in cap-era to repeat.

Part of the thing that, in my opinion, tip the scales toward Pittsburgh is the back-to-back, as well as the fact that they still look to be in contention, whereas Chicago is being dismantled.

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

It's not a question of "3 in 6" vs "3 in 10[sic]". It's a question of "3 in 13" vs "3 in 13".

The Hawks not being able to maintain success on account of the cap, is more of an indictment than anything. I would have to think that being able to navigate the cap, and achieve the same success, is more impressive than blowing your load and miss managing a winning-formula. Food for thought.

Oh, so we're basically taking out how dominant the Hawks were in a shorter amount of time, to compensate the pens who up until recently were a middle of the road playoff team?

Three in six does matter. The Hawks had a three year gap where they were neck and neck with a Kings team that was their only peer and lost to those same Kings, who went on to win the Cup.

You could argue the Hawks 13 thru 15 we're a much better team then the Pens back to back teams considering they took the cup champs to a seventh game who then went and destroyed the Rangers in the finals.

Or, you can say the Hawks had a higher peak, which would be right, while the Pens needed eight years of being a middling playoff team to actually aquire the depth to be on a similar, if not a notch below a Hawks team that's a cap era dynasty.

Depends on what the pens do in the next few years. Too early yet to place them with the Hawks,imo

 

[Tweed]

Oh, so we're basically taking out how dominant the Hawks were in a shorter amount of time, to compensate the pens who up until recently were a middle of the road playoff team?

Three in six does matter. The Hawks had a three year gap where they were neck and neck with a Kings team that was their only peer and lost to those same Kings, who went on to win the Cup.

You could argue the Hawks 13 thru 15 we're a much better team then the Pens back to back teams considering they took the cup champs to a seventh game who then went and destroyed the Rangers in the finals.

Or, you can say the Hawks had a higher peak, which would be right, while the Pens needed eight years of being a middling playoff team to actually aquire the depth to be on a similar, if not a notch below a Hawks team that's a cap era dynasty.

Depends on what the pens do in the next few years. Too early yet to place them with the Hawks,imo

We're not taking anything out. That's the whole point of my post. The OP asked about "this generation". This generation is a 13 year span. It was you who was taking out years to make your judgement. I'm simply trying to bring your attention to your first mistake.

PS. It's not just you doing it... there's page after page of people derailing the thread with verdicts on 3in6 vs 3in9.

 

[Tweed]

Thought experiment for y'all:

Not totally off-topic, but not exactly related to the OPs question. Just my way of gauging how you guys measure things...

Which team did better in this 13 year span:

Team A) Miss the playoffs for 12 straight years, thrash all opponents on way to Stanley Cup victory in 13th year
Team B) Make the playoffs every year and lose in the second round every year.

I'm curious to hear how you all would award "the better franchise" tag, in this scenario.

 

[illpucks]

Pens lost 4th cup to the '08 team that everybody is saying is better than any Hawks, Kings or Pens team iced in this generation.

sure but who was on their level in 15-17? They faced 8th place Nashville and a SJ team known for choking. Their hardest East opponent was a team known for choking.

 

[Tweed]

sure but who was on their level in 15-17? They faced 8th place Nashville and a SJ team known for choking. Their hardest East opponent was a team known for choking.

So what you're saying is; the Penguins were head and shoulders better than their SCF opponents (including the rest of the league), and the Hawks were barely better than the Kings.

I'm sorry, I'm confused... are we trying to make a case for Hawks dominance?

 

[illpucks]

So what you're saying is; the Penguins were head and shoulders better than their SCF opponents (including the rest of the league), and the Hawks were barely better than the Kings.

I'm sorry, I'm confused... are we trying to make a case for Hawks dominance?

The Kings who won 2 cups were far harder than any Penguins had to face from 15-17.

 

[Tweed]

The Kings who won 2 cups were far harder than any Penguins had to face from 15-17.

You're saying that, and all I'm getting out of this, is that you're not grasping the relative nature of your statement. The teams the Penguins beat looked bad... because the Penguins were THAT dominant and made them look THAT bad.

Those '11-'14 Kings teams, were for all intents and purposes a .610 hockey club. They earned their success, yes... but please don't act like they were some juggernaut.

You're making it sound like the league sucked '15-'17 and the Penguins were the only team that "didn't suck", and were champs by default. That's f***in' asinine. Starting with them beating the Presidents trophy Caps, in BOTH of their runs.

 

[illpucks]

You're saying that, and all I'm getting out of this, is that you're not grasping the relative nature of your statement. The teams the Penguins beat looked bad... because the Penguins were THAT dominant and made them look THAT bad.

Those '11-'14 Kings teams, were for all intents and purposes a .610 hockey club. They earned their success, yes... but please don't act like they were some juggernaut.

You're making it sound like the league sucked '15-'17 and the Penguins were the only team that "didn't suck", and were champs by default. That's ****in' asinine. Starting with them beating the Presidents trophy Caps, in BOTH of their runs.

Caps were known chokers. Presidents' doesn't equal cups. Nashville another round 2 loss.

Kings had better 3 year than any recent Pens team.
Cup
WCF loss G7
Cup

Not a juggernaut? An OT goal away from Cup, Cup, Cup

 

[Tweed]

Caps were known chokers. Presidents' doesn't equal cups. Nashville another round 2 loss.

Kings had better 3 year than any recent Pens team.
Cup
WCF loss G7
Cup

Not a juggernaut? An OT goal away from Cup, Cup, Cup

That's not how hockey works dude. Good teams lose sometimes, lesser teams prevail sometimes. I never said the Prez = the Cup, so I'm not sure why you're breakin' out that weak-sauce on me. I'll tell you this much, no middling team ever won the President's trophy.

Cup-NoCup-Cup... is not explicitly the sign of a more dominant team than a Cup-Cup-NoCup team.

The more you try to show me how a .610 team managed to claw its way to 2-and-a-half Cups... the more you're convincing me that the Hawks were playing the easier teams, than the Pens were.

Furthermore, you're seriously downplaying how good Nashville is, and has been... and that's not a good look for you. What you're doing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. How can you claim the West is strong*?

*except for when they meet the Pens in the finals, then whoever prevailed in the West is either a "choker" or "pedestrian".