Current Blackhawks vs. past dynasties

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Jasonthegreat, Jun 17, 2015.

  1. Jasonthegreat

    Jasonthegreat Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    9
    though I don't consider the present-day Blackhawks to be a true dynasty yet, here's what I'm asking: With a couple more cups, could this current Blackhawks run become one of the greatest dynasties of all-time? Will they fit in with the class of, say, the 70s Montreal Canadiens, the 1980-83 NY Islanders, and the 60s Toronto Maple Leafs if they claim more Stanley cups?
     
  2. Iceman

    Iceman Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Messages:
    10,589
    Likes Received:
    1,910
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Well, regular season has to match the playoff success. Players should be taken into account as well. A well built and coached team doesn't sound too exciting. With Art Ross or Hart Winners on your team, it stacks up much better.
     
  3. OzzyFan

    OzzyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Whoa there. :laugh: That's a huge hypothetical for a team is paying it's 2 best players 32% of their cap room next season.

    I don't think they can honestly do anything or show anything that would make them better than the Habs, Isles, or Oilers dynasties were. I mean, as flat out team vs team at their best? They would get destroyed by any of those greats. Isles won 19 in a row, Habs had some of the best built teams of all-time, and the Oilers with playoff machines Gretzky/Messier/Kurri/Coffey+ were unreal. They need at least 2 cups in the next 2yrs to even get into the conversation.
     
  4. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    27,967
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Trophy Points:
    229
    To be quite honest with you, the Hawks would definitely get beat by the Oilers, Canadiens or Islanders. Don't take that as a knock, because even the Broad Street Bullies got swept by the Canadiens in 1976 to end their run.

    However, this version of the Hawks would match up decently against other Cup winning teams. Not just post lockout either. They might get to 6 games against the Red Wings of the 1990s. Hey if the Carolina Hurricanes can win one game in 2002 I don't see how the current version of the Hawks couldn't win two.
     
  5. Monsieur Gustave H

    Monsieur Gustave H Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    126
    I think they'd matchup best against the 70's Habs to be honest, that's the only team they wouldn't decisively lose the center-ice matchup to. Stylistically, they're most similar to the Isles. Toews/Kane/Keith is basically a poor mans version of Trottier/Bossy/Potvin.
     
  6. alko

    alko Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,296
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    184
    Location:
    Slovakia
    Home Page:
    And the never ending discussion is going further.

    Im saying, current Blackahwks team will win a series VS 70s Canadiens dynasty.
    You cant compare the level of ice hockey, the player skills then and now.
     
  7. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    48,718
    Likes Received:
    3,155
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Obviously, some of the older dynasties were better teams in an absolute sense than the current Blackhawks - the compression of talent in a smaller league makes it so.

    But I think what the Blackhawks have done (which is NOT a dynasty. I like to call the DPE Devils and Red Wings "quasi-dynasties" or "pseudo-dynasties," and that's where the Blackhawks fit) is similarly impressive to an actual dynasty given the current league dynamics.
     
  8. The Panther

    The Panther Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    10,758
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    That's right... which is why we should never compare the past teams to today's. The only comparison that matters is comparing teams to their peers.
     
  9. ChiTownPhilly

    ChiTownPhilly Not Too Soft

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Occupation:
    Asst Supervisor- State Gov't
    Location:
    S Jersey near Philly
    To be sure. When the late-50s Canadiens and early-mid 60s Maple Leafs were dominating, they were sharing talent with five other teams. At the dawn of the Canadiens "final Kingdom" era of the mid-late 70s, there were 20 teams in the league, total. There was a similar number (21) at the beginning of the Islanders' run. Blackhawks are sharing talent with 29 other teams- AND dealing with a salary-cap that's impelled them to shuck valuable pieces of their team in the past, and will impel them to do so again.

    For the appropriate tribute to the Blackhawks, consider NOT if they're 'a dynasty,' (it's unproductive to dispute with those who say they're not), NOR try to argue that their players are a reputational match for other great multi-Cup winners in history (they probably aren't). Instead, consider their place among hockey's "greater-than-the-sum-of-their-parts" teams. For starters, just looking at this year, you can't convince me that the Blackhawks are clearly more talented than Anaheim- OR Tampa Bay. [Earlier this decade, you could make a great case that Vancouver yielded nothing to Chicago in terms of talent.] And yet, Chicago has carried on, winning in categories other than skill-level... again and again.
     
  10. vadim sharifijanov

    vadim sharifijanov ugh

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,106
    Likes Received:
    3,202
    Trophy Points:
    186
    seems like four cups is the prerequisite for a dynasty. i think the real question isn't whether the hawks would beat the wings, habs, leaves, isles, or oilers of old. it's, if that fourth cup comes, how far are we willing to stretch the definition of dynasty?

    currently, they have three in six years with an unchanging core of toews, kane, keith, seabrook, hjalmarsson, sharp, and hossa. would we accept four in seven? four in eight? if they win that fourth cup in 2018 or 2019 and only sharp and one other guy are gone, would we accept four in nine or ten, with the same five guys?
     
  11. tony d

    tony d HFBoards Sponsor Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    75,170
    Likes Received:
    3,573
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Office Worker
    Location:
    Behind A Tree
    In this era of a salary cap the Hawks are indeed a dynasty. Don't think they'd stack up well though next to some of those old Montreal or Edmonton teams though
     
  12. OzzyFan

    OzzyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    They might be better than the sum of their parts, but you can't downplay their talent, they are clearly one of if not the most talented teams in the nhl the last half decade. Bolts is gonna be debatable because of age, lot of young forwards, but on to the Hawks:

    Going into this year:
    Toews=Top 5-10 center with Selke defensive abilities.
    Keith=Most say a top 3 to the best d-man in the NHL(he just won another Norris).
    Kane=Top 5-10 winger in the game and arguably better, coming off a PPG injury shortened season.
    Sharp=Top 10-15 winger, coming off a 78pts season and excellent 2-way play.
    Hossa=Top 10-15 winger, coming off a 30goal shortened season and excellent 2-way play(5th in Selke voting)
    Seabrook=Top 15-25 D-man, coming off a 40pts season in which he got a couple late finish norris votes.
    Hjlamarsson=Top 40-60 D-man, coming off a a great year in shutdown minutes.
    Saad=Top 30-45 winger, coming off a 47pts season with great 2-way play.

    So no, they are supertalented, you'd be selling them short to portray them as even marginal underdogs in talent or on paper. They are one of the most top heavy teams in the NHL by far. Nobody arguably has a better top 4/5 forward core or top pair going into last season(next year, Bolts will have them beat finally with Sharp likely gone), and they rely heavily on them for the most part in the playoffs. Could they be better than the sum of their parts? Arguably, but I'd say marginally if so. It's not like they have had too many dominant playoff runs or division titles or president's cups. The 2010 Cup run was magical, but they were also a deeper team than now, so it's hard to say if that was "better than the sum of their parts".
     
  13. ThorntonFightClub*

    ThorntonFightClub* Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    It's gotta be 4 in 7 for me. You need at least 1 back 2 back to be a dynasty.

    From 99-07 the Spurs won 4 titles, none in a row. They aren't considered a dynasty in the NBA.
     
  14. Ishdul

    Ishdul Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,938
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Winning 3 in a row would be considered a dynasty by roughly 100% of people, 3 in 4 by ~99%. If they win next year than the 2010 Cup is an interesting sidebar to a team winning 3 in 4 in today's league with the year they lost being a Game 7 OT affair to the Cup winners with the same group of players.
     
  15. Ishdul

    Ishdul Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,938
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    101
    It's back and forth whether going 3 of 5 in 03-07 is a dynasty. It's certainly not dismissed out of hand.
     
  16. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    48,718
    Likes Received:
    3,155
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    3 in 4 is a dynasty, at least in a salary capped world. You still have the team winning back to back + 1. You still have the team winning more Cups than other teams combined over a period of time. In the salary capped NFL, everyone considers the New England Patriots a dynasty.
     
  17. ChiTownPhilly

    ChiTownPhilly Not Too Soft

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Occupation:
    Asst Supervisor- State Gov't
    Location:
    S Jersey near Philly
    I'll go further than saying that they "might" or that "it's hard to say..." For me, it's not hard to say:

    They ARE greater than the sum of their parts.

    They ARE an overachieving team.

    The team has won three Stanley Cups in six years. Based on this, there are three possible positions--

    A) They've overachieved (my position)
    B) They've performed according to expected value (i.e.: "they're so 'loaded' that they SHOULD win three Stanley Cups...")
    C) They've underachieved (should've won more).

    Which position do you hold?!
     
  18. Kyle McMahon

    Kyle McMahon Registered User

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,272
    Likes Received:
    1,793
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Sports Investor
    Location:
    Evil Empire
    Home Page:
    B for me. Chicago has had 4 future HOFers playing at a high level since 2010. Add in all-star caliber play from Sharp and often Seabrook, sometimes Hjalmarsson. Plus excellent depth on all three Cup-winning rosters. This team absolutely should have won the 3 Cups that they have. To be honest if they'd won less I'd be tempted to choose option C.
     
  19. Monsieur Gustave H

    Monsieur Gustave H Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    126
    I think they were the clear cut best team twice (2010, 2013) and arguably the best the past two, while not being a favorite in 2011 & 2012. So I think they achieved what they should have. Probably should have beat Phoenix but otherwise they met or exceeded expectations.
     
  20. OzzyFan

    OzzyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Yeah, I'd probably go B like the guys above me. We are talking one of the highest talented high-end forward groups in the year annually, similar for their top 3 D, multiple HOFers, etc.

    As others said, I definitely expected 2 cups, arguably 3. If they overachieved according to projection, it's slightly if so. It doesn't take anything away from them though, as a standalone, 3 cups in 6yrs is great. But to say the Hawks winning multiple cups was unexpected is a bit off I'd say.
     
  21. Ishdul

    Ishdul Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,938
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    101
    I feel like if you asked those questions independently, you'd get answers that wouldn't add up. Like people would say that the Sharks, Canucks or Capitals should have won once or twice, the Penguins should have expected several, all while not actually expecting less (or even expecting more) from Chicago. But then they still only give out 1 Cup a year.

    It would be A for me. I think you'd have to have some truly out there talent advantage that you saw on the old dynasty teams to have a legitimate expectation of 3 Cups so far, with possibly more on the way.
     
  22. ChiTownPhilly

    ChiTownPhilly Not Too Soft

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Occupation:
    Asst Supervisor- State Gov't
    Location:
    S Jersey near Philly
    If "best team=expected-to-win" was true, you'd find the pre-season favorite betting at even money to win the Cup. [Or perhaps even odds-on.]

    This, of course, doesn't happen in the Real World.

    I think it's easy to lose sight of the probability-gauntlet that needs to be negotiated to win EVEN ONE Stanley Cup.

    Let's say you have a fine team. Hey- maybe even The Best Team. First, they have to get to the post-season in one piece, metaphorically speaking (or perhaps even literally speaking, sometimes). [For instance, this year's Nashville had a top team... but their injuries nerfed up their chances.] Then (for illustration purposes) say that this team is sufficiently dominant to have a 70% chance of winning the 'average' series in which it's involved. [70% is relatively arbitrary number- I'm choosing it 'cause it's pretty easy to work with.]

    The chance of winning one series- 70%. The chance of winning back-to-back series-- about a coin-flip. Three-in-a-row - we're now down to about one-third. All four... now we're at c. one-quarter.

    In order to be 50/50 to run the table, you need to at about (p) .84 for each series.

    Ain't discrete statistics fun?!

    Well, luckily for 'Hawks fans (and to shamelessly crib a Barry Melrose line): "hockey players aren't good in math."
     
  23. Kyle McMahon

    Kyle McMahon Registered User

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,272
    Likes Received:
    1,793
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Sports Investor
    Location:
    Evil Empire
    Home Page:
    For people taking the time to think out there answer though, I think you'd find most people answering B wouldn't also suggest those other teams should have won.

    I know I never once expected Washington or Vancouver to win a Cup. I don't think I've ever favored Pittsburgh's chances over Chicago's
    going back to 2010. San Jose I had pegged as the favorite in 2011, so that's really the only one.

    I think it's reasonable to have expected Chicago to win the West 3 times in 7 tries since they became a contender in 2009. And we've been in a situation where winning the West makes you a prohibitive favorite for the Cup in most years.

    I'll say it again, but Chicago has enjoyed six straight seasons of having FOUR future HOFers in their lineup playing at a high level, and they've always all been healthy in the playoffs. Compare that to the competition. In this era, even great teams seldom have more than two sure-fire HOFers at any given time.
     
  24. The Panther

    The Panther Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    10,758
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    It's bad enough we already use 'adjusted stats' -- do we have to adjust dynasties now?

    I can see the day coming: "The Black Hawks in 2010-2015 won four out of five adjusted Cups!"

    Can something that actually happened (or didn't) just be what it is?
     
  25. OzzyFan

    OzzyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    That chance of winning 1 series thing is a hypothetical situation in which odds decrease after winning each series, which isn't how reality works. You have to factor in opponents(underdog/overdog), you have to factor in home ice, you have to factor in roster health, factor playoff performances/expectancy of players, etc.

    The Hawks win 2 series in a row, sweeping the Wild in the 2nd round, nobody thinks they have a 33% chance of winning the Western Conference finals, their odds don't decrease with every win. That's not how it works in reality. This isn't a mathematical equation based on win/loss probability. There are new calculated favorites every new head to head playoff round. Your chances of winning the cup increase with each series win anyway, not decrease, which is why the theory of probability doesn't apply here. Your 85% favorites doesn't apply here, because in theory they would have been 85% favorites at the stanley cup game to win the cup than, which would have made them even heavier favorites to win the cup than actually suggested/believed.

    As KMcMahon said, any die hard/close following hockey fan knew the Hawks were cup favorites at least 75% of the past 8yrs. They had the most front line talent depth on F and D in the whole NHL for the past 6yrs. We are talking 4 HOFers either in their prime or playing high end hockey. On paper before the season and going into the playoffs, they were annual Cup favorites. It wasn't a secret, this was a team that usually played their best hockey in the playoffs and everyone knew it. Their only disappointment was losing to the Yotes in the 1st round in 12', but that's evened out with the cup win. Aside from the Kings for a season or 2, I don't know who would put anybody ahead of the Hawks to win the cup. This is a team that made the Western Conference finals 5X's in the last 7yrs. Underdogs they were never, favorites they were always, and for good reason. That's why I still go with B in your scenario, at most B+. If you asked any knowledgeable hockey fan in 2010 if the Hawks would win multiple cups in the near future as their roster sits, most people would say yes.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"